D PATTAMMAL Vs. K KALYANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter relates to the correctness of the valuation of the plaint in the suit and the Court-fee payable thereon though the revision petition is against an order appointing an advocate-Commissioner to determine the market value of the property.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed the suit out of which this revision petition arises for delivery of possession of the entire ground floor and the portion in the rear side of the first floor in No.18 Nattu Pillayar Koil St., G.T. Madras 1, more particularly described in Schedule B to the plaint. In paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff had stated that the property described in Schedule A originally belonged to one Perumal Mudaliar, father-in-law of the plaintiff, and, by a registered deed of settlement dated 29-9-1933, he settled the same in favour of the plaintiffs husband granting him life interest and after his death, his widow, the plaintiff to have a life interest and after her lifetime, the male heirs of her husband should take the property absolutely. It was further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was in possession of a portion of the house and the other portion has been in the unlawful occupation of the defendant. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, is a son of her husband through his first wife. It is not necessary to refer to the other averments in the plaint for the purpose of this revision petition. The plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 35486 being the market value of the 4/7th share in the possession of the defendant and paid a Court fee of Rs. 2382-50 under S.30 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. In the memo of calculation attached to the plaint, the market value of the entire property was stated to be Rs. 62240 and the value of the property in the possession of the defendant was stated to be Rs. 35486. The basis on which the market value was arrived at by the plaintiff was not set out either in the plaint or in the memo of calculation. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the correctness of the valuation of the suit property for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction was challenged. The defendant did not raise any express plea that the market value of the property should be ascertained on any particular basis. However, the defendant stated that the suit should be framed as one for declaration of title and possession.

(3.) The defendant fled I.A. No. 21854 of 1984. for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner to determine the market value of the property. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was stated that the property was a very valuable one worth more than Rs. 4 lakhs and it had been wantonly under valued, by the plaintiff in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The application was contested by the petitioner herein who denied the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of his application for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner.