Sridharan vs Lakshmikantham Ammal (died) Krishnaswamy @ Mohan and Others

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—The 5th defendant who alone contesting the suit has preferred this Revision challenging the decision of the trial court

with regard to preliminary issue relating to payment of court fee.

The first respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 495 of 1998 for the relief of Declaration and Injunction. The plaintiff contended that the

suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Ponnammal. She donated the properties to Kannammal @ Thailyalnayaki. The suit

item is shown as the 1st item in registered Donation Deed. She was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by planting coconut

trees and harvesting the same. The plaintiff inherited the said property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties on behalf of other

legal heirs of Kannammal also. While so, there were deeds executed to one Chidambaram for leasing the usufruct of the coconut trees.

Chidambaram defaulted in paying the rents and had initiated a proceeding in CPTPA No. 5 of 1991 before the Revenue Court, Pudhucherry. The

said Chidambaram died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. The defendants 1 to 4 joined hands with the the 5th defendant, the

revision petitioner herein and claimed untenable rights over the suit property. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

Admittedly D.1 to D.4 were set ex parte. D.5 contested the suit by filing his written statement. He took the plea that as per the prevailing

practice in Puducherry, he purchased the suit property from the owners and other unauthorised occupants and took delivery of possession.

He also filed I.A. No. 3057 of 1999 to take up the issue of payment of court fee as a preliminary issue contending that the suit property is a

vacant land and court fee has to be paid based on the market value of the same. The learned District Munsif taking into consideration of the both

oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has correctly valued the suit property by paying 30 times of assessment of

kist which is the market value of the suit property as provided u/s 7(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Aggrieved of the

said decision, this CRP has been preferred.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the learned District Munsif has no jurisdiction to deal with the as the suit property is

exceeding the value of Rs. 10 lakhs based on Exs.X.1 to X.4, which have not been properly appreciated by the trial court. The decision arrived at

by the trial court construing the suit property as an agricultural land is erroneous, whereas it is only a vacant plot. Learned Counsel for the revision

petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Solaiammal (died) and Another Vs. Rajarathinam and Others, , wherein this Court held that

the Courts while ascertaining the court fee paid and pecuniary jurisdiction should look into the substance of relief sought for and not to be carried

away by mere plaint averments.

It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are only agricultural lands and coconut trees are planted and hence it only attracts 30

times of kist, being the market value of the same. Whereas, the 5th defendant relied on Ex.X-2, the valuation certificate, which speaks about the

guideline value and pleaded that the guideline value and market values of the properties would be high and hence the trial court lacks pecuniary

jurisdiction.

According to the learned senior counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, the guideline value cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of

valuing the suit and court fees as held by the Apex Court in R. Saibharathi v. J. Jayalalitha. Learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of the

Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) and Another, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that it

would be dangerous to value the property according to the guideline value, as there is no guarantee or truth or correctness of the data given in the

guideline.

Admittedly, the Issues 1 and 2, relating to valuation of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, were taken up as preliminary

issues in the suit by passing an order in the I.A.No:3057 of 1999 filed by the revision petitioner. Further, both the plaintiff and the 5th defendant

have examined witnesses and marked documents in support of their claims in the full-fledged trial on these two issues. Therefore there can be no

grievance by either parties as to the taking up of the valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court as preliminary issues.

As regards whether the trial court is correct in not taking the guideline register value for valuing the suit, instead followed Section 7(2) of the Act

for arriving at the market value considering the suit property as agricultural land, it has to be held that, even though the substance of the relief

claimed is for declaration and consequential injunction, as has been held by this Court in G. Krishnamurthy and Others Vs. Sarangapani and

Another, , the suit property being assessed to revenue kist, the decision of the trial court that market value of the land which is assessed through the

revenue records will be reckoned u/s 7 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, is in order. The trial court came to the right conclusion that the

suit property is dry punja land as classified in the revenue records as agricultural land as seen from Exs.X.3,X.4, X.5 and X.6 and the same is

assessed by revenue kist i.e., Rs. 1.40 and 70 paise, in total Rs. 2.10. If so, Rs. 2.10 x 30 = Rs. 63.00 Therefore less than Rs. 400/=. u/s 25(b)

half of the market value to be taken, which is less than Rs. 400/= and therefore, the court fee of Rs. 30.50/= paid is proper and correct one. The

plaintiff has also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his contention. The documents marked on the side of the defendants

themselves would show that the suit property is assessed to revenue kist.

A combined reading of Sections 7 and 25 of the Act would make it clear that if the property in question is a land assessed to be taxed and if

so 30 times the assessment shall be presumed to be the market value. Section 2(b) is to the effect that where the land is a house site whether

assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke or any other land not falling under Clause (a) its market value. So it could be seen that the Court Fees

Act makes a distinction between the land and a house site and where the land is assessed meaning thereby that it is an agricultural land. So, the suit

property is classified as dry punja land in revenue records and not as a house site. The suit property being classified in the revenue records as

agricultural land and it is assessed to revenue kist, which is fortified by the oral and documentary evidence, the market value of the suit property is

liable to be reckoned u/s 7 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore the valuation, as made in the plaint is perfectly tenable in law and

calls for no interference in this revision. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court.

In the result, the CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.