Kappurama Mudaliar vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Singaravelu, J.—The plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. The /plaintiff filed the suit against the State of Tamil Nadu and two.

others for a declaration that the revenue sale held by the Revenue Authorities on 9.10.1973 is null and void. The plaintiff valued the suit for the

purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction u/s 25(d) of the Court-Fees Act. A check-slip was issued by the Court-fee Examiner pointing out that the suit

should be valued and court-fee paid u/s 40(1) of the Court-Fees Act on the market value of the property. There was an enquiry and the trial Court

found that the suit should be valued u/s 40(1) of the Court-Fees Act. A revision was preferred against that order and the same was dismissed.

Later, the trial Court held that in this suit, the plaintiff should value the subject-matter at its market value. The plaintiff is aggrieved by this order and

has come on revision,

I have heard Learned Counsel on both sides and perused the papers. The short point that arises for decision is whether u/s 40(1) of the Tamil

Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the court-fee is payable on the market value or on the value of the property for which the document in

question was executed.

It is common ground that the revenue sale was for a sum of Rs. 6,000. The trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay court-fee at the market value

of Rs. 50,000. Section 40(1) of the Court-Fees Act recites that in a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money

value, or other document which purports or operates to create any right, title or interest, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter

of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be the amount or the value of the property for which the document was executed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision reported in Andalammal Vs. B. Kanniah, wherein the learned Judge has held that Sec40(1)

of the Court-Fees Act refers to ""the amount or value of the property, for which the document was executed."" It is then observed that the basis for

the purpose of valuation shall be the amount or value mentioned in the document sought to be cancelled and that there is no warrant for ignoring the

plain language of the section and holding that the value shall be the market value of the property.

As against this, Learned Counsel for the respondents cited the following decisions In their favour. The first case cited is reported in S. Krishna

Nair and Another Vs. Rugmoni Ammal alias Valiamma Pillai, . There was a distinguishing feature in this case - ''to use the words of the learned

Judge - viz. the plaintiffs therein were not the same parties who participated in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, relying on this distinguishing

feature, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the property should be valued u/s 40(1) of the Court-Fees Act and not u/s 25(b) of the Act.

The facts of the case on hand do not apply to the facts of the present case.

The next case cited is reported in T.S. Rajam Ammal Vs. V.N. Swaminathan and Others, . That was a case, where the plaintiff''s suit for a

declaration that the sale deed in question was not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of the suit properties. The plaint properties were -valued

by the plaintiff in that suit on the market value as on the date of the plaint and not on the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. The defendants

preferred* an appeal and sought to value the subject matter of the suit not on the basis of the market value but on the basis of the consideration

recited in the document cancelled by the trial Court. In that context, Ismail, J. (as he then was) held that the appeal has to be preferred on the

market value of the items as on the date of the plaint. All the previous cases on the subject including the Full Bench decision reported in Kolachala

Kutumba Sastri Vs. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma and Others, , were cited and discussed. According to the Full Bench decision, the

appeal has to be valued with reference to the market value of the properties involved and not with reference to the consideration recited in the

document. This Full Bench decision was followed in Sengoda Nadar Vs. Doraiswami Gounder and Others, , holding that the subject-matter has to

be valued with reference to the market value of the properties involved. The amendment of the Court-Fees Act and its effect were also considered

in T.S. Rajam Ammal Vs. V.N. Swaminathan and Others, , and it was held that there is practically no difference between the old Act and the new

Act on this question the only difference being with reference to the description of the documents coming within the scope of this statutory provision.

In the Full Bench decision Kolachala Kutumba Sastri Vs. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma and Others, , the suit was for a decree setting

aside a conveyance which the plaintiff had executed and for possession of the land. The Full Bench held that the court fee has to be paid on the

market value of the property as on the date of the plaint. Ultimately, the learned Judge held, following the decision of the Full Bench and the

decision rendered by Sadasivam, J., in Sengoda Nadar Vs. Doraiswami Gounder and Others, , that the expression ''value'' in Section 40 of the

Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955 refers only to the market value and not to the consideration recited in the document.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner however argued that in this suit, the plaintiff has asked only for a mere declaration without any consequential

relief and therefore, the facts of the Full Bench case, Kolachala Kutumba Sastri Vs. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma and Others, , and the

decision in T.S. Rajam Ammal Vs. V.N. Swaminathan and Others, , do not apply. I am unable to agree. The suit, though framed as if it is only for

declaration, has to be construed as including the consequential relief of possesion also. In this case, the petitioner, whose property has been sold in

revenue auction has not parted with possession of the property and therefore, by getting a decree for declaration, he gets the benefits of the

consequential relief of possession also. Therefore, in the circumstances, the declaratory relief includes the consequential relief also by virtue of the

document being set aside. In this conclusion, I am also guided by the decision reported in S. Periasami Vs. Smt. Chellammal and Another, , where

also no consequential relief was asked for. The result is, I am of opinion, that the petitioner/plaintiff will have to pay court fee on the market value

of the property as on the date of the plaint and not on the value mentioned in the document.

The next question is with reference to the market value of the property. The trial Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 50,000. It is not known

how the trial Court arrived at this conclusion and therefore its valuation at Rs. 50,000 is arbitrary. The trial Court will have to ascertain the market

value of the property as on the date of the plaint according to the provisions of Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act.

The result is, the revision is allowed in part and that portion of the order fixing the market value of the property at Rs. 50,000 is set aside and the

trial Court will determine the market value of the property according to the provisions of Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act. No costs.