Gandhimathi vs R.M. Velusamy

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2012 made in I.A. No. 182 of 2011 in O.S. No. 222 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur, in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of C.P.C., seeking for a direction to the plaintiff to correct the valuation as per the pleadings and to pay the Court fee on such findings.

The respondents herein as the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 222 of 2010 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that they are entitled to the easementary right of pathway over ''B'' schedule property to reach ''A'' schedule property by virtue of the alienation of right of easement to pass through ''B'' schedule property made by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant under registered sale deed dated 16.05.2008 registered as document No. 2208/2008, and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any manner, interfering with the plaintiffs easementary right to use the ''B'' schedule property. They have valued the relief of declaration as Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid the Court Fee of Rs. 7,500.50 under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, they have valued at Rs. 1,000/- and paid Rs. 75.50 as Court Fee under Section 27(C) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

The contention of the petitioner herein, who is the second defendant in the said suit, is that the plaintiffs have not valued the suit property in accordance with the plaint pleadings. It is the contention of the petitioner that the plaintiffs should pay the Court fee on a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which is said to have been spent by the plaintiffs for enjoying the suit pathway. The Court below rejected the application by holding that the plaintiffs have filed the said suit for declaration of the easementary right of pathway and they have not filed the suit to declare the ownership of the ''B'' scheduled property. Therefore, the Court below found that the plaintiffs have valued the suit property properly based on the relief claimed in the plaint and paid the Court fee correctly.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the above application before the Court below and submitted that the Court Fee should have been paid on the said sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, said to have been spent by the plaintiffs. I am unable to accept the said contentions.

Admittedly, the suit has been filed seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to the easementary right of pathway over ''B'' schedule property to reach ''A'' schedule property. Seeking such easementary right, they have valued the relief of declaration as Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid the Court Fee of Rs. 7,500.50. As rightly pointed out by the Court below that they are not seeking the declaration of ownership of the ''B'' schedule property and that being the factual position, the second defendant/petitioner herein, is not justified in his contention. Moreover, the payment of Court Fee is a matter between the Court and the plaintiffs and the role of the defendant in such matters are very limited, more particularly, under facts and circumstances of the present case, the second defendant is not at all justified in maintaining the present application, which was rightly rejected by the Court. Hence, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.