SRIDHARAN Vs. LAKSHMIKANTHAM AMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 5th defendant who alone contesting the suit has preferred this Revision challenging the decision of the trial court with regard to preliminary issue relating to payment of court fee.

(2.) THE first respondent herein has filed the suit in o. S. No:495 of 1998 for the relief of Declaration and Injunction. THE plaintiff contended that the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Ponnammal. She donated the properties to Kannammal @ Thailyalnayaki. THE suit item is shown as the 1st item in registered Donation Deed. She was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by planting coconut trees and harvesting the same. THE plaintiff inherited the said property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties on behalf of other legal heirs of kannammal also. While so, there were deeds executed to one Chidambaram for leasing the usufruct of the coconut trees. Chidambaram defaulted in paying the rents and had initiated a proceeding in CPTPA NO. 5 of 1991 before the Revenue court, Pudhucherry. THE said Chidambaram died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. THE defendants 1 to 4 joined hands with the 5th defendant, the revision petitioner herein and claimed untenable rights over the suit property. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the learned District Munsif has no jurisdiction to deal with the as the suit property is exceeding the value of Rs. 10 lakhs based on Exs. X. 1 to X. 4, which have not been properly appreciated by the trial court. The decision arrived at by the trial court construing the suit property as an agricultural land is erroneous, whereas it is only a vacant plot. LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of this court in Solaiammal (died) and another Vs. Rajarathinam and five others, reported in 2003 (4) CTC 268, wherein this court held that the Courts while ascertaining the court fee paid and pecuniary jurisdiction should look into the substance of relief sought for and not to be carried away by mere plaint averments.