SELVARAJ Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. THE plaintiffs filed the suit O. S. 269 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Polur, for declaration of their title over the suit properties and for the relief of consequential injunction. THE defendant, in the written statement has raised an objection that the suit properties, to be precise, items 5 to 7 were not properly valued. THE trial judge after framing issues, examined the witnesses concluded the trial and heard the arguments of both sides and posted the case for judgment on 12. 3. 1996, 26. 3. 1996 and again on 29. 3. 1996. On 29. 3. 1996, the learned trial judge passed an order that the trial was concluded on 28. 2. 1996 after the examination of the oral and documentary evidence and since it was felt that the question whether the suit items 5 to 7 were properly valued or not cannot be decided without any evidence and hence, the trial Judge passed the impugned order to the effect that to find out the real value of suit items 5 to 7 of the suit properties, they should be valued through the process of the Court. THE trial Judge, therefore, directed that the suit properties viz. , items 5 to 7 of the suit properties should be valued through the process of court and a report on the valuation of the suit properties should also be submitted. THE plaintiff was directed to pay batta on or before 4. 4. 1996.

(2.) THE revision petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that it is not open to the trial Judge to order for the valuation of the properties through the process of the Court, after the evidence is recorded. According to him, under Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "court Fees act"), the issue regarding the valuation of suit properties should have been tested before the evidence is recorded and since, in the instant case, the court has reserved judgment after the trial is concluded, it is not open to the court to initiate the proceedings under Section 12 (2) of the Court Fees Act to determine the market value of the items 5 to 7 of the suit properties. THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court should have issued a Commission under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ascertaining the correct market value of the suit properties and it is not open to the Court to resort to the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Court fees Act.

(3.) THOUGH I have held that the trial Judge has not exercised the powers under Section 12 (2) of the Court Fees Act or under Order xxvi, Rule 9 of the Code; still I am of the view that the trial Judge has exercised the powers of the Court which are inherent in deciding the issue whether the items 5 to 7 of the suit properties were properly valued or not, and whether the Court fees paid by the plaintiff was correct or not. It is only with a view to answer the issue as regards the correctness of the Court fees paid, the trial Court, in my view, should have directed that the items 5 to 7 of the suit properties should be valued through the process of the Court. Since the Court has the wide powers to render its answer to the issue raised by collecting materials or evidence, I am of the view, the order is sustainable on the larger powers of the Court to decide the issue as effectively as it can. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Judge in directing the valuation of the items 5 to 7 of the suit properties through the process of the Court. Since the Court has the necessary power, independent of the evidence adduced by the parties to find out the market value of the suit property and to determine the proper court fee payable, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Judge in directing the valuation of items 5 to 7 of the suit properties through the process of the Court. It is however, made clear that the valuation so directed to be done by the trial Judge should be done by an officer holding a higher rank than that of a Court Amin so that the report of the valuation that may be furnished by such an authority may be reliable and useful to the Court. In this view of the matter, I dismiss the Civil Revision petition, but without no order as to costs. Since the time granted by the trial judge to the Civil revision petitioner to pay the necessary batta has already expired, the time for payment of necessary batta is extended for a further period of three weeks. .