A. Thirunavukkarsu vs T. Sreedevi

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The revision emanates from the order passed by

the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, in an unnumbered suit in O.S.SR. No. 3833 of 2007 dated 08.10.2007. The suit was filed by the

plaintiff/revision petitioner for declaration of his title. The plaintiff has valued the suit u/s 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation

Act, which was questioned by the Office returning the plaint stating that the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fees u/s 25(a) or u/s 25(b) of the

Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (herein after referred to as ''the Act''). The learned District Munsif had taken up the issue on the

representation made by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the court and had passed the impugned order that there is no reason to

exclude the relief sought for by the plaintiff u/s 25(a) or 25(b) of the Act and accordingly returned the plaint for representing the same after paying

the necessary Court fees u/s 25(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Munsif, the present revision has been preferred by the

revision petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relying on Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Shanmugam and Others, , would contend that in

a suit for declaration the Court fee is to be paid u/s 25(d) of the Act. The facts of the said case is that:

The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void and

not binding on him.

The learned Judge of this Court who had disposed of the said revision petition had observed that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 13 of 2002 / revision

petitioner therein is not a signatory to the impugned sale deed and he has not asked for any cancellation of the same and the relief sought for under

the plaint is a declaration that the sale deed dated 31.10.2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void.

It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff/revision petitioner therein has not asked for a declaration of title in respect of the property in dispute, but he

sought for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void.

Only under such circumstances, it has been held by the learned Judge of this Court in the above said ratio that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff u/s

25(d) of the Act is correct.

But that is not the case on hand. The plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has filed the suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to him and that

the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the name of the defendant and the sale consideration was paid by him for the impugned three sale

deeds of the year 2002, which are standing in the name of the defendant. u/s 25 of the Act if a suit for declaratory decree or order is filed and the

prayer is for declaration and for possession of the property the Court fee is to be paid u/s 25(a), and if the suit is for a declaration and for

consequential injunction the Court fee is to be paid u/s 20(b), and if the suit is for plaintiff''s exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark,

name, book, picture, design or other thing the Court fee is to be paid u/s 25(c), and in other cases the Court fee is to be paid u/s 25(d) of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that since the plaintiff had filed the suit only for declaration it will come only under

the category of Section 25(d) of the Act and the plaintiff need not pay Court fee u/s 25(a) or 25(b) of the Act as directed by the Court below. But

I am of the view that even though there is no specific relief for recovery of possession, the plaintiff under the suit has sought for the relief of

declaration that the suit property belongs to him under the impugned three sale deeds of the year 2002 which stood in the name of his daughter, the

defendant in the suit. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by the learned District Munsif, the Court fee is to be paid only u/s 25(a) of the Act

and not u/s 25(d) of the Act.

In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order passed in unnumbered suit in O.S.S.R. No. 3833 of 2007 on the file of the

Court of District Munsif, Tambaram. For representation of the plaint after paying the necessary Court fee u/s 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees

and Suits Valuation Act one month time from this date is granted to the revision petitioner. No costs.