G KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SARANGAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Notice of motion was ordered by me on 30-10-1995 returnable by 15-11-1995. Interim stay was granted till then. On service of notice Mr. Yashod Vardhan entered appearance on behalf of the Respondents. The respondents herein filed the suit O.S. No. 340 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, of Pondicherry for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit properties. In the suit the petitioner along with the plaintiff took an objection that the court-fee paid is not sufficient as the plaintiff has to pay the court-fee ad valorem. The Learned District Munsif, who tried the same as a preliminary issue had that the suit has not been properly valued and correct court-fee has not been paid. Since the value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court, the learned District Munsif ordered the plaint to be returned with a direction to present the same before the proper forum with subsequent court-fees paid on or before 21-12-1992. Aggrieved by the same the respondents preferred A.S. No. 12 of 1983 on the file of the III Additional District Judge at Pondicherry. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal permitting the plaintiff to contest the suit and held that the court-fee paid also was sufficient. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the above revision as the second appeal is not maintainable in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned III Additional District Judge has erred in reversing the well considered judgment of the II Additional District Munsif and his reasons therefor are erroneous and that the learned District Judge ought to have seen that the suit lands are only dry lands used as house sites. This apart, the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate P.W.9, who has admitted the current value of the suit properties. He has also failed to consider the guideline value for the suit properties while computing the court-fee. Therefore, the learned District Judge has failed in his duty in not returning the plaint as the value of the suit exceeds and the proper court-fee has not been paid. I have been taken through the entire pleadings and also the orders passed by both the Courts below. The learned District Munsif by her order dated 16-11-1992 determined that the suit has not been properly valued and proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff for the reasons accorded in her judgment. Since the value of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif, the suit was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff with a direction to present it before the proper forum with subsequent court-fee. My attention was also drawn to the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, who, by his order on 28-4-1975, reversed the finding of the learned District Munsif. I have carefully gone through the findings rendered by the District Judge. For a better appreciation of the stand taken by both sides, it is better to look into the relevant provisions of the Court-fees Act. Under Section 7(2) the market value of the land in suits under Sections 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be deemed to be there the land is assessed, thirty times the survey assessment on the land and where the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or any other land not falling under Clause (a), its market value. Under Section 25(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on Rs. 300/- which ever is higher. Referring to the provisions of the Court-fees Act, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Yashod Vardhan had submitted that the Act contemplated only if the property in question is a land assessed to be taxed and if so 30 times the assessment shall be presumed to be the market value. Section 2 Clause (b) is to the effect that where the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke or any other land not falling under Clause (a) its market value. So it could be seen that the Court-fees Act makes a distinction between the land and a house site and where the land is assessed meaning thereby that it is an agricultural land. So, the suit property is classified as ryotwari land in revenue records and not as a house site. The learned counsel to fortify his stand that the Court has to follow the classification of lands envisaged in the Act and cannot interpret in the way it viewed had invited the attention of the Court to the cases decided in AIR 1933 Mad 367 and 1981 Mad Law Weekly 502. He also cited a decision in Rathanavarma Raja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299. It is useful to extract some portions of the above decision occurring at paragraphs 2 and 3 :