IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:22..01.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.PD.945 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 1.Arokiasamy 2.Karuthan @ Maliayappan 3.Kanickam 4.Prathelovi 5.Vanathammal 6.Anthoniammal 7.Arumainathan 8.Masilamani 9.Therasammal 10.Gnanasundari 11.Dhanamani 12.Selvam ... Petitioners vs. 1.Periyanagam 2.Janaki 3.Anantharaj 4.Loordhumary 5.Arul doss 6.Minor Albert Raj @ Ambedkar 7.Pathiyamary 8.Johnson 9.Rebelkumar 10.Pushparani 11.Rosline 12.Minor Luckas ... Respondents This civil revision petition is filed as against the order dated 16.3.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2002 by the Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgement and decreer dated 12.10.2001 passed in O.A.No.114 of 1996 by the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet. For Petitioners : Mrs.R.Meenal For Respondents : No appearance ORDER
Anim-adverting upon the order dated 16.3.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2002 by the Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgement and decreer dated 12.10.2001 passed in O.A.No.114 of 1996 by the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet, this revision petition is focussed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the plaint, succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be set out thus:
The respondents 1 to 6 and two others, as plaintiffs, filed the suit O.S.No.114 of 1996 in the Court of District Munsif, Ulundurpet, seeking the following reliefs:
“to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants declaring the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants and their men in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by plaintiffs, for costs of the suit.”
Whereupon the defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement, questioning the valuation and the Court fee affixed. Whereupon the trial Court framed the preliminary issue relating to the valuation and payment of Court fee and entertained both oral and documentary evidence. Ultimately, the trial Court arrived at the finding that the suit should have been valued, approximately, in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, whereas the District Munsif Court, at that time had jurisdiction only up to Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the learned District Munsif ordered the return of the plaint for being presented before the proper Court. Whereupon, C.M.A.No.6 of 2002 was filed before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, by the plaintiffs. The District Judge set aside the order of the lower Court by giving a finding that the suit was maintainable before the District Munsif Court in view of Section 7(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act(herein after referred to as the Act) and that the suit could be valued based on 30 times kist value of the suit property. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order of the District Judge, the defendants filed this revision on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop her argument to the effect that the District Judge, placing reliance on only Ex.A2-the kist receipt, which emerged relating to the suit property during the year 1978, jumped to the conclusion that the suit could be assessed based on kist value of the suit property, forgetting for the moment that the suit was filed in the year 1996 and that no kist receipt for the immediate period anterior to the filing of the suit was produced; whereas, the other exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiffs would demonstrate and evince that subsequent to payment of such kist as per Ex.A2, for a pretty long time, the plaintiffs, have been paying house tax relating to the house situated in the suit property so to say ever since 1981; as per Section 7(2)(g) of the Act, once the suit site is used as house site, it should be assessed as per the market value and not on kist basis.
4. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants that the learned District Judge, in page 6 of his order placed reliance only on Ex.A2-the kist receipt dated 23.2.1978. Whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1996. The subsequent changes have not been taken into consideration at all by the leaned District Judge. There is also no indication that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit property was assessed to land Revenue and that the plaintiffs paid kist.
5. A bare perusal of Section 7(2)(g) of the Act would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that when the reality is such that as on the date of filing of the suit, a particular property is used as house site, certainly incommensurate with the prevailing market value, the said property should be valued and accordingly Court fee should be paid. The learned District Judge was very much carried away by the District Munsif’s placing reliance on Ex.B1-the Valuation Certificate given by the Sub-Registrar of documents concerned and commented upon it as though guideline value is different from market value. No doubt, guideline value is different from market value and there could be not quarrel over it.
6. It is one thing to say that the property should be assessed based on kist value and it is yet another thing to give a finding that the guide line value should not be taken verbatim as the market value. However, the District Judge, based on Ex.A2, wrongly rendered the judgement that the property should have been assessed based on 30 times of the kist value, without even looking for any recent kist receipt.
7. As has been already highlighted supra without being tatalogous, I would reiterate that the object of Section 7(2)(a) of the Act should be taken note of. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that Legislators intended that agriculturists should be favoured. An agriculturist should not be compelled to pay through his nose huge Court fee, based on ordinary market value in order to seek redressal, if his property is attempted to be trespassed or if he wants to recover his property. If a poor agriculturist is compelled to pay ad valorem Court fee, then it will be discouraging for him to approach the Court. With that intention alone Section 7(2)(a) of the Act came into vogue and that cannot be misused by other persons, who are converting the lands into house sites. Hence, in this view of the matter it is clear that the District Judge fell into error in deciding the C.M.A.
8. Accordingly, the judgement and decree of the District Judge dated 16.3.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2002 is set aside and the order of the District Munsif dated 12.10.2001 passed in O.S.No.114 of 1996 shall stand restored.
9. However, I make it clear that once the plaint is returned then it is for the plaintiffs to present it before the proper Court and it is for that Court to assess the actual market value de hors the value of Rs.4,00,000/- as assessed by the District Munsif Court. I make it clear that once again the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to raise the issue of their alleged right to get assessed the suit property based on kist value. However, it is open for the plaintiffs to establish what is the actual market value of the suit property and accordingly pay the Court fee before the transferee Court.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk 22.1.2009 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To 1. The Principal District Court, Villupuram 2. II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet. G.RAJASURIA,J. msk C.R.P.PD.945 of 2008 22.1.2009