P ARUNACHALAM Vs. L THIAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants filed a petition challenging the valuation of the suit filed by the plaintiff, by filing I.A. No. 68 (a) of 2009 in O.S. No. 162 of2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai under Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C. to decide the additional issues regarding the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs as preliminary issues and that application was dismissed by the District Munsif, as against that, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that 'A' Schedule property belongs to the first plaintiff and 'B' Schedule property belongs to the second plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enjoying the suit scheduled property in a peaceful manner. While describing the A Schedule property and 'B' Schedule property, it has been stated in the schedule that the property is punja lands and Survey Numbers are 93/A2 and 93/3 A3. The defendants have filed a written statement in paragraph '13' wherein they have stated that the suit is not properly valued and accordingly the appropriate Court fee has not been paid. Thereafter, the defendants have filed I.A. No. 68(a) of 2009 in O.S. No. 162 of 2008 stating that the suit properties are house sites and the plaintiffs have treated them as Ryotwari punja lands and they have paid Court fee under Section 7(1 )(a) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit, according to the market value of the suit property, which is a house site and if so valued, the Court will not have jurisdiction to decide the issue and therefore, the additional issues framed, is as a settlement issue.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed, a counter stating that the suit property has been classified as Ryotwari punja lands and even the defendants have stated in the written statement that the suit property is Solai Punjai and therefore, the suit property has been properly valued.