JUDGMENT
Prabha Sridevan, J.
1. The only question here is whether the appellate Court could remand the suit to decide the sufficiency of court-fees that was paid without any objection or order in regard to this issue. The 1st respondent filed suit for declaration and injunction. The value of the suit was stated to be Rs. 2,705.50 and the suit was filed before the District Munsif, Vedasandur. The appellants herein who were the defendants did not raise any objection relating to court-fee. The suit was dismissed on a detailed consideration of the materials before the Court. The following three issues alone were framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that she is the owner of the suit property?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?
(3) To what other reliefs, is the plaintiff entitled to?
2. The 1st respondent herein filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge at Dindigul. The learned Judge formulated the following issues for consideration based on the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal:
(1) Whether the appellant/ plaintiff is the wife of Chellappa Gounder?
(2) Whether the settlement deed dated 25.1.1996 under Ex. A-2 and the release deed under Ex.A-3 are genuine and valid? If so, whether the appellant/ plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties?
(3) Whether the plaintiff/ appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties?
(4) To what relief is the appellant/ plaintiff entitled?
Thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded to consider whether the Court below had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He discussed the value of each item of the suit property in detail and came to the conclusion that the value given cannot be correct and if the correct value is assessed, the Court below will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit to the lower Court to test the value of the suit properties to frame an issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction and if necessary, to return the plaint with a direction to present the suit before the proper forum. Aggrieved by this, the defendants have filed the present C.M.A.
3. Mr. N. Damodaran, learned Counsel for the appellants raised the following points: According to him, the Court of appeal ought not to have considered the correctness of the valuation when the defendants have not raised the objection and that the objection regarding jurisdiction, not having taken at the earliest juncture, cannot be allowed to be taken later under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955. Therefore, the appellate Judge clearly exceeded his jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also referred to the decision reported in Puthumma v. Kuntalan Kutty to support his case.
4. In reply, Mr. V. Venkatasamy, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that when the question is one of loss of revenue to the State and the Court below had found that the estimate made by the respondent/ plaintiff is not correct, the appellate Court could go into the issue and therefore, there was nothing wrong with the order. Section 12(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955 reads thus:
Whenever a case comes up before a Court of appeal, it shall be lawful for the Court, either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower Court affecting the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the lower Court and determine the proper fee payable thereon.
5. The Court of appeal may, therefore, lawfully consider the correctness of the court-fee payable either on its motion or on the application of any of the parties only if any order has been passed by the lower Court affecting the fee payable on the plaint or any other proceeding. We cannot ignore even one word in the Section so as to give a different meaning from what was intended. In this case, the defendants who are the appellants herein had not raised any objection regarding the correctness of the court-fee. Therefore, no issue was framed in this regard by the trial Court and no decision was given regarding the valuation. While so, the Court of appeal cannot on its own motion, consider the correctness of the Court-fee since there is no order passed by the lower Court affecting this question. In this case, there is no dispute that neither of the parties applied to the Court of appeal to consider this. Even if they had done, the Court of appeal can decide this issue only if the lower Court had passed an order regarding the same. In the old Act, the accent appears to have been on the revenue and therefore, Section 12(2) read thus:
But whenever any such suit comes before a Court of appeal reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided, and the provisions of Section 10, paragraph (ii) shall apply.
But the language of the Section as it stands now gives no room for any ambiguity.
6. In the decision reported in Janaki Ammal v. Rangachari (1960)2 M.L.J. 527, the learned Judge of this High Court had set out the three stages at which a Court can enquire into the question whether a plaint or appeal has been property valued:
Ordinarily there are three stages at which a Court can enquire into the question whether a plaint or appeal has been properly valued. They are: (a) Before the registration of the plaint on appeal. In such cases it will be open to the Court to review, correct and further review its decision in the manner specified in Section 12(1) of the Madras Court-Fees Act; (b) After the suit or appeal has been registered an issue on the question of court-fee can be raised by the defendant or respondent and the Court should decide the matter. In such cases the decision will be binding on the Court that rendered it unless a fresh decision is asked for by the Court-Fee Examiner; (c) On the objection of Court-Fee Examiners under Section 18 of the Act, when a decision has been given on the report of the Court-Fee Examiner no further review or reconsideration is possible except by an appellate Court under Section 12(4) of the Act. A decision given under Section 18(2) of the Madras Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955, will be final so far as that Court is concerned. In the absence of a statutory provision expressly enabling the Court to review its decision, a decision on the question of court-fee once given will be binding on the Court which gave the decision at all subsequent stages.
7. In this decision reported in Ramachandran v. Anjammal (1963)2 M.L.J. 59, the learned Judge in a short judgment, considered the question whether the District Judge could suo motu take up and scrutinise the matter of court-fee. In this, the decision reported in Janaki Ammal v. Rangachari (1960)2 M.L.J. 527 referred to above was also referred to and then, the learned Judge holds thus:
At page 530, the learned Judge has referred to the three stages at which interference would-be permissible. But with regard to the memorandum of appeal that stage is definitely prior to the registration of the appeal. After the registration of the appeal, it is only by means of an objection taken by the respondent, or with regard to a request for a decision by the Court-fee examiner under Section 18, that the Court could review the court-fee paid. Otherwise it has no power suo motu to do so.
8. Therefore, once the appeal has been registered, unless the respondent takes an objection, the Court has no power suo motu to do so. The learned Judge held that the District Judge should not have interfered at all with regard to the alleged erroneous valuation. He held that it was a question of power and jurisdiction. In this case, the defendants did not raise any objection regarding the valuation as given by the plaintiff. The question of valuation was never put in issue and therefore, the trial Court has no occasion to pass any order with regard to the correctness of valuation. The trial Court however dismissed the suit. The appellate Court, without any objection raised in this regard by the defendants, or any order passed by the trial Court, thought it fit to deal with the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and remanded the matter. There is nothing in the order to show that the findings of the trial Court have been set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff made attempts to defend the impugned order. I am afraid, he cannot do so because, it would only mean that he had deliberately under-valued the suit. Having lost the case on merits, he would be getting another opportunity to contest the matter perhaps before a different forum without even having to assail the findings given by the trial Court against him. The appellate Court clearly fell in error in taking up the question of pecuniary jurisdiction without either having the power to do so or the jurisdiction. The order of the Court below is therefore set aside. The appellate Judge is directed to take up the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The findings regarding the valuation is set aside. The C.M.A. is allowed. No costs. C.M.P. No. 3467 of 2001 is closed.