P.K. Sivanmalai vs T. Sakunthala

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner has come up with the above revision petition, challenging the finding recorded by the Trial Court on a preliminary issue regarding the valuation of the relief prayed for in the suit and the court fee paid.

Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S. No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, praying for the following reliefs :

"a) declaring the power of attorney deed dated 6.7.1992 in favour of Palanisamy is null and void and unenforceable;

b) setting aside the sale deed dated 23.3.1996 executed by power of attorney holder S. Palanisamy in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 is null and void and unenforceable;

c) declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and directing the defendants 1 and 2 to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs and put them in possession of the same;

d) declaring that the mortgage deed dated 16.6.2004 is a sham and nominal and unenforceable one against the plaintiffs;

e) granting a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating or encumbering the suit properties or interfering any manner with the plaintiffs'' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same under the guise of the mortgage deed;

f) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agent from trespassing into the suit properties or interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs'' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same;

g) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiffs; and

h) granting such other and further reliefs as this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

They had valued the reliefs claimed in paragraph 25 of the plaint as follows :

"The plaintiffs value their relief on Rs.1,51,500/- and a court fee of Rs.11,365/- is paid under Sections 25(d), 40, 25(a) and 25(b) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act as detailed hereunder :

Details of Valuation

(A) For the relief of declaration :

As the relief claimed is incapable of valuation as the plaintiffs notionally value Rs.1,000/- and a court fee of Rs.75.50 is paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act;

(B) For the relief of setting aside the sale deed :

The value quoted in the sale deed Rs.39,500/-, hence a court fee of Rs.2,963/- is paid under Section 40 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act;

(C) For the relief of declaration and possession :

Hence, a court fee of Rs.7,500.50 is paid under Section 25(a) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act;

(D) For the relief of declaration and consequential injunction :

The mortgage amount mentioned in the impugned mortgage deed is Rs.10,000/- and hence, the plaintiffs paid a court fee of Rs.750.50 under Section 25(b) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act;

(E) For the relief of permanent injunction :

As the relief claimed is incapable of valuation as the plaintiffs notionally value Rs.1,000/- and a court fee of Rs.750.50 is paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

Hence, a total court fee of Rs.11,365/- is paid accordingly."

The petitioner herein, who was the second defendant in the said suit, filed an application in I.A. No.70 of 2008 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit properties along with a chartered valuer to ascertain the market value. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court by an order dated 15.7.2010, appointing one Mr.S.Duraisamy, Advocate as the Commissioner, to inspect the properties and to file a valuation report.

In pursuance of the warrant of commission, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the properties and submitted a report. After perusing the said report, the Trial Court passed an order on 28.4.2011, holding that the suit properties had been properly valued.

As against the said order, the petitioner came up with a revision in C.R.P.(PD) No. 3675 of 2011. The said revision petition was partly allowed by an order dated 5.9.2012, with a direction to the Trial Court to take evidence regarding the market value on the date of filing of the suit and to take a decision thereafter upon the correctness of the court fee paid in respect of relief ''C''.

In pursuance of the said order, the Trial Court again took up the suit. In the suit, the parties let in both oral as well as documentary evidence and the Trial Court eventually held that the valuation was proper and that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. It is against the said order that the petitioner has come up with the above revision petition under Article 227 of The Constitution.

As seen from the above narration of facts, it was the petitioner, who invited the Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and find out a valuation. Not satisfied with the finding recorded in the first instance, the petitioner himself came up before this Court and obtained a direction to the Trial Court to permit the parties to let in evidence. Both oral and documentary evidence have been let in and the Court below has decided the preliminary issue regarding the correctness of the valuation and the court fee paid. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the said order.

Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that despite the fact that the Village Administrative Officer was summoned and examined as a witness and despite the fact that he also filed the guideline valuation, the Trial Court wrongly proceeded on the footing that no document was filed on the side of the petitioner. Therefore, it is his contention that the finding is perverse.

However, a Full Bench of this Court has held in Sakthi and Co. Vs. Shree Desigachary, that the guideline valuation cannot be taken to be the basis for determining the market value. The parties have let in evidence and the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence. Therefore, in a revision under Article 227, the scope for interference is extremely limited. The suit is already 7 years old. Even at the stage of preliminary issue, it has seen two rounds upto this Court. Hence, I do not wish to entertain the revision petition.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.