S RAJASEKARAN Vs. K SARGUNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application praying to decide the court fee issue as the first and primary issue by framing necessary additional issue in that regard, the first defendant has filed the present revision.

(2.) ACCORDING to the revision petitioner/defendant, the suit document has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 1 ,00,500 /= and a court fee of Rs. 7538. 50 has been paid. But, as to the actual market value of the property, the court has failed to frame necessary additional issue. Hence the I. A. , for framing necessary issue and to decide the same as the first issue.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that though necessary pleading has been raised as to the improper valuation of the suit property in the written statement by the defendant, yet the trial court has not framed an issue in that regard and even the I.A. , filed by the defendant has been dismissed on a misconception of law. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as per the Section 40 of Court Fees Act, the suit property ought to have been valued on the market value and not on the value set forth in the document.