JOHN DEVADOSS Vs. RUTH MORIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING regard to the nature and scope of the consideration required for the civil miscellaneous petitions and the main revision, the main case itself has been directed to be posted for hearing along with the miscellaneous petitions and has been heard together.

(2.) THE revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur dated 20.9.1994 in LA. No.702 of 1994 in O.S. No.71 of 1994 whereunder in the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff in the court below it has chosen to order the return the plaint as also the application for impleading for being presented to the Court of District Munsif at Ponneri for further course of action before the said court. THE plaintiff filed O.S. No.71 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvallur praying for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction. THE suit has been valued at Rs.25,000 for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction and it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,875.50 has been paid as court-fee. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed LA. No.702 of 1994 for amendment of the plaint averments in paragraph 10 of the plaint to substitute therein the averments that the plaintiff valued the suit for Rs.75,516.00 being the market value of the suit property and half of the market value of the suit property being Rs.37,758.00 for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction and that acourt-fee of Rs.2,831.85 is paid under Sec.25(b) of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application in the court below that originally the Village Administrative Officer gave a certificate that the suit property measuring about 58 cents in Survey No.544/6 of Gummidipoondi Village was worth Rs.25,000 and the very next day an affidavit was filed for the amendment of the suit value as Rs.30,500 and an additional court-fee was also deposited in LA. No.397 of 1994 and that the court below ordered notice to the respondent and that a counter-affidavit was also filed. THEreupon, it appears that the court below ordered for test by Amin and the Amin from Ponneri District Munsif's Court in the presence of the local people and the Village Administrative Officer noted the value of the suit property to be about eight lakhs. It is further stated that again steps were taken to have the valuation certificate and the Village Administrative Officer gave a certificate stating that the present value of the suit property was Rs.1,302 per cent, keeping into account the guideline value available with the Sub-Registrar, Gummidipoondi. It is in such circumstances, it has been claimed in the affidavit that the amendment in question was necessitated warranting the filing of I.A. No.702 of 1994. THE application was opposed by the respondent herein by contesting the. claim that the value of the suit item is only Rs.75,516 and it is stated that the correct value of the suit item is Rs.5,31,048 excluding the building and that to avoid payment of court fee on the same the application came to be filed.

(3.) MR.S.Krishnasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction so far as the plaint filed is concerned as only Rs.12,500 and that being below Rs.15,000 the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or deal with any applica- tion filed therein. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Sec.25 deals with suits for declaration and wherever a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Sec.26 is sought for and where the prayer is only for declaration and for consequential injunction and relief sought in with reference to any immovable property fee shall be computed on one, half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher and having regard to Sec.53(2) in a suit where fee is payable under the Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value as stated in the plaint and inasmuch and the money value of the property has been stated to be Rs.25,000 notwithstanding the fact that the court-fee has been paid in terms of Sec.25(b) of the Act on half of the market value, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of court it has to be considered with reference to the value of the property as such namely to Rs.25,000 and thus viewed the suit filed in the sub-court is quite in accordance with law and the conclusion of the court below that the same is not entertainable in the Sub-Court is liable to be set aside.