SRI LA SRI SOMASUNDARA GNANA DESIGA SWAMIGAL, MADATHIPATHI OF KOVILUR MUTT, REPRESENTED BY POWER-AGENT SIVAPRAKASA SWAMIGAL Vs. SRI KRISHNANDASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition involves the construction of Sections 12 and 28 of the Madras Court -fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Madras Act XIV of 1955). The suit was originally instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur, in 1960 and registered there as O.S. No. 14 of 1961. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the properties set out in Schedules A to D -2 of the plaint and for rendition of accounts by the defendant and future profits, the plaintiff instituting the suit as Madathipathi of Kovilur Mutt. The plaintiff had valued the suit for purpose of Court -fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 2,34,652 and paid Court -fee Rs. 200 under Section 28 of the Act on the relief of possession, the maximum Court -fee payable under that section, and a Court -fee of Rs. 75 in respect of relief for accounting under Section 35(1) of the Act. The suit was later transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam, where it became O.S. No. 14 of 1964. Then for the first time the office raised the question of Court -fee payable on the plaint, but later dropped that matter, as the plaint had already been registered. The defendant who did not raise any objection as regards the Court -fee in his written statement filed when the suit was pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, in August, 1964 by way of additional written statement, raised the question that the suit has not been properly Valued and the fee paid is not sufficient. It is on this objection by the defendant that the Court considered the question and passed an order on the 19th of April, 1965 holding that the Court -fee paid by the plaintiff was not correct and that he had to re -value the plaint in regard to recovery of possession under Section 30 of the Act and pay Court -fee thereon under Section 30 of the Act.

(2.) IT is necessary to set out briefly the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff claims to be the present Madathipathi or Adhinakarathar of Kovilur Mutt in Ramnad District. It is stated that a predecessor of the present plaintiff, the 5th Madathipathi of the Kovilur Mutt, before his death, went to Tirukkalar in or about 1907 for renovating Sri Parijathavaneswarar temple there and for the purposes of his stay, he built a madam there and called it as Ko, a Madalayam. It is stated that as the head of the Kovilur Mutt, with the funds of the Mutt, for the upkeep of the Mutt and for Kattalai started by him in the temple at Tirukkalar, he acquired properties and a Samadhi has been erected for him at Tirukkalar. The present plaintiff states that succeeding head of the Kovilur Mutt added further properties and he also purchased further properties and utilised the income for the Madalayam at Tirukkalar, for the maintenance of the Samadhi Pooja and worship there. The plaint proceeds to aver that an establishment was maintained at Tirukkalar to look after the lands purchased, to have worship at the Samadhi conducted and to feed devotees and disciples that might resort there, and that the practice of the Adhinakarathars (head) of Kovilur Mutt was to send one or other disciple to Tirukkalar as agent to supervise and look after the Madalayam, the buildings and lands, all detailed in the schedule to the plaint. It is stated that the defendant as a disciple has been similarly sent to Tirukkalar to supervise and attend to the affairs by the Adhinakarathar Mahadeva Gnana Desiga Swamigal, a predecessor of the present plaintiff. The position of the defendant in relation to the suit properties is thus set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint:

(3.) IN the additional written statement the defendant filed questioning the propriety of valuation of the suit the defendant states that the suit was not one where the properties admittedly belonged to the plaint madam, and that the dispute did not relate to claims by rival trustees of the same madam. It is stated, that this is a case where the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit, proper ties and where the defendant claims title to the same on behalf of another mutt. The defendant's case in his written statement is that he was not sent to Tirukkaiar as Karvar and is not a subordinate of the Kovilur Mutt. He claims to have been installed as madathipathi of the suit mutt and to be functioning as such. As the basis for determination of Court -fee is the suit as laid in the plaint, it is not necessary to refer to the contentions in the defendant's written statement or the claims put forward by him.