Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1029 (MAD)

Raju Alias M. Sengoda Asari v. K. R. Ponnusamy

2000-10-18

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2000
Judgment : 1. The above revision arises out of an order in Court Fee Check-slip in O.S.No.23 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchengodu. 2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioners, contending that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000 on 18.8.1988 and Rs.1,500 on 20.9.1988 from the defendant, who had obtained thumb impression and signatures from the plaintiff in unfilled promissory note forms jointly and in unfilled stamp papers of value of Rs.2.50. The defendant had also received the original sale deeds standing in the name of the first plaintiff in respect of a house and building at Kollapatti. In the plaint, the details of the documents have been given as follows;- "(I) A Rs.2.50 value stamp paper -unfilled-signed by all the plaintiffs. (2) A Rs.2.50 value stamp paper unfilled - signed by 2nd plaintiff Rathinavel. (3) A Rs.2.50 value stamp paper unfilled - signed by 3rd plaintiff Gunasekaran. (4) Two unfilled, stamped, pronote forms containing the impression, signature of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. (5) Two unfilled stamped, pronote forms containing the thumb impression, signature of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. (6) Original sale deed dated 19.10.84 stands in favour of the 1st plaintiff. (7) A fullscape paper, unfilled, containing the signatures of the plaintiffs." 3. Therefore according to the plaintiffs, the defendant was having in his custody the above nine documents. The defendant had executed a letter containing particulars of the said documents obtained from the plaintiff. In the said letter, the defendant had wrongly mentioned the loan amount as Rs.2,50,000 instead of Rs.2,500 with ulterior motives. The plaintiffs further contended that they had repaid the amounts by monthly instalments of Rs.50 which have also been duly acknowledged in a Notebook maintained by the plaintiff. The entire loan amount had been discharged on 1.7.1991 itself. But in spite of several demands, the defendant did not return the documents under some excuse or other. Hence, a notice dated 3.9.1994 was sent to the defendant calling upon him to return the documents. A reply Notice dated 13.9.1994 was received from the defendant's Advocate refusing to return the document and containing false averments. The plaintiffs further understand that the defendants are trying to make use of the documents to make unlawful gains, with an eye over the immovable property belonging to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was unsafe to leave the documents in their hands. The plaintiffs further understand that the defendants are trying to make use of the documents to make unlawful gains, with an eye over the immovable property belonging to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was unsafe to leave the documents in their hands. 4. On the basis of the said averments, the plaintiffs prayed for a direction to the defendant to return the documents mentioned in the plaint schedule. For the purpose of the court fees, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.800 namely Rs.400 as the value of the title deed and Rs.400/- as the value of the documents other than the title deed and claimed to pay the court-fees of Rs.61.50 under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, (hereinafter called "the Act"). 5. The defendant filed a detailed written statement and it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions raised thereunder except to the extent as would be relevant to decide the issue on hand. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs had received different sums of money by executing four promissory notes at different times and that the plaintiffs were liable to pay more than Rs.2,00,000. He (defendant) had in fact, filed two suits on two promissory notes before the Sub Court, Tumkur, Karnataka State, against the plaintiffs which are pending for trial. As regards the allegations of having obtained signatures on blank papers, defendant contended that such allegations are baseless. With reference to the alleged custody of the title deeds also, the defendant has categorically stated as follows: "It is equally false to allege that the defendant has got original sale deed standing in the name of the first plaintiff in respect of the immovable i.e. a house and building situated at Kollapatti." The defendant had concluded by stating that the suit documents are imaginary and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of the return of the documents. 6. The Office of the Court issued notice on the basis of the Inspection Report of the Principal District Judge, to both the counsel stating that according to Section 24(2)(i) of the Act, for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or the market value of the property secured under the document. 6. The Office of the Court issued notice on the basis of the Inspection Report of the Principal District Judge, to both the counsel stating that according to Section 24(2)(i) of the Act, for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or the market value of the property secured under the document. It was further stated in the notice that the value of the registered sale deed which is one of the documents should have been taken into account and that the suit will lie only for recovery of documents of title and not in respect of the blank papers which are not defined under Section 24 of the Act. The District Munsif was required to frame preliminary issues on the said point. 7. The plaintiffs filed their objections contending that the suit has been properly valued and that it was wrong to state that the suit will lie only for the recovery of the documents of title. Such a suit was maintainable under Section 24 of the Act. The point raised in the notice were also considered at the time of numbering the suit and only after hearing the plaintiffs' counsel, the suit was numbered. 8. On considering the said objections, the learned District Munsif passed the impugned order holding that the suit should have been valued on the basis of the value of the property reflected in the sale deed dated 10.10.1984 under Section 24(2)(i) of the Act. The plaintiffs were therefore, directed to value the property correctly and pay the court- fee thereon. Hence, the above revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the stand of the Court below that the court-fee has to be paid on the valuation of the property covered under the title deed, proceeds on a wrong interpretation of Section 24. The Court has to be guided only on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and cannot depend upon the defendant's contention in his written statement. It was also erroneous on the part of the Office of the Court to have expressed that no relief for documents other than title deeds could be entertained. This view was again a misconstruction of Section 24 of the Act. It was also erroneous on the part of the Office of the Court to have expressed that no relief for documents other than title deeds could be entertained. This view was again a misconstruction of Section 24 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Neelavathi v. N.Natarajan, A.I.R.1980 S.C. 691 holding that the material allegations in the plaint should be construed and taken as a whole in computing the court-fees and the decision cannot be influenced by the contentions raised in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. 10. The said view expressed by the Supreme Court was also followed by this Court in the following judgments:- (i) Varadharaja Pillai v. Muthusamy Pillai and 2 others, 1996 (2) C.T.C. 523 . (ii) Ramachandran v. Munisamy, 1998 (II) M.L.J. 521 . 11. Learned counsel for the respondent however, contends that a reading of Section 24 would disclose that the valuation as given by the plaintiff would be accepted only if the fact of the possession of title documents "is not denied.", as found in Section 24(2)(b) of the Act. Since the defendant had seriously disputed the contentions of the plaintiffs, it is only Section 24(2)(a) of the Act which would apply and in terms of the said provision, the court fee is to be paid on one-fourth of the market value of the property. 12. It is necessary to extract Section 24 of the Act to appreciate the scope of the issues arising for consideration in this revision. "24. Suits for movable property -(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed - (a) where the subject matter has a market value, on such value; or (b) where the subject matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. "24. Suits for movable property -(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed - (a) where the subject matter has a market value, on such value; or (b) where the subject matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. (2)(a) In a suit for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or of the market value of the property secured by the document - (i) where the plaint alleges denial of the plaintiff’s title to the money or the property secured by the document, or (ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff s title to the money or the property secured by the document; Provided that where the allegation in the plaint or the issue framed relates only to a portion of the amount or property, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of such portion of the amount or on one fourth of the market value of such portion of the property. (b) Ina suit for possession of documents of title where the plaintiff’s title to the money or the property secured by the document is not denied, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. Explanation - The expression "document of title" means a document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign,- limit or extinguish, whether- in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, in any property." 13. It will also be useful to extract Section 7(iii) and 7(iv)(a) of the Act being the corresponding provisions under the Old Act. "7 (iii) - In suits for movable property other than money where the subject matter has a market-value according to such value at the date of presenting the plaint. 7(iv)(a) - In suits (a) for movable property where the subject matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title .... [(b) to (f) not relevant]. according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought." 14. [(b) to (f) not relevant]. according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought." 14. A comparison of the Old Act and the provisions under Section 24 of the present Act would show that the old Act was much liberal as regards documents. Section 7(iv)(a) did not assign any market value to the documents. Therefore, understandably in Venkata Rao v. Sesharattamma, 40 M.L.W. 709 : 67 M.L.J.680 dealing with the old Act, Ramesam, J. held that the value of the document was not the money value or the money due on the notes to the value as stated by the plaintiff. But Section 24 of the present Act has departed from the liberal approach under the Old Act and envisages two different types of documents for the purpose of fixing the court fees. 15. The first type [(Section 24(2)(a)] is one where the plaintiffs' title to the money or the property secured by the document is denied or an issue is framed regarding the plaintiffs' title to the same. In such a case, the fee shall be calculated on the one-fourth of the amount or the market value secured by the document. 16. The second type [(Section 24(2)(b)] is where the title of the plaintiff as mentioned above is not denied, in which case, the fee shall be computed on the valuation as given in the plaint. The second type is more or less similar to the old provision except for the added requirement in the present Act that the title should not have been denied. 17. Nowwe may turn to the facts of the present case. On an analysis of the facts and the provisions under Section 24 of the Act, I am afraid that the contentions raised by both sides actually run contrary to the facts and the legal implications. It is true that in deciding court -fees, the Court should look into the allegations and the actual substantive relief asked for and that mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not stand in the way of the Court in ascertaining the real nature and substance of the relief asked for vide the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2384. It is also true that by and large in deciding the court-fees consideration should be restricted to the pleadings in the plaint and not the written statement. Determination of the court -fees may also depend upon the stand of the defendant which may be expressed by way of a notice or reply notice or in the written statement. As already analysed one of the vital factors to be ascertained is whether the plaintiffs' claim of title to the money or the property secured by the document, is denied or not. Different considerations would arise if either the defendant admits or denies the title of the plaintiff. The plaint does not contain any allegation to the effect that the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff to the property in question. 18. Evenassuming that the Court can consider the allegations in the written statement, as regards question of title to the property covered under the sale deed allegedly in possession of the defendant, I had already extracted above the positive stand of the defendant that he does not have any such document with him- Nor has he denied the title of the plaintiff over the property in any portion of his written statement. Therefore, the simple outcome of the facts stated in the written statement is that the plaintiffs' title to the property is not at all denied by the defendant. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there is a denial by the defendant and therefore, Section 24(2)(b) of the Act will not apply. Denial of allegations generally is different and denial of the plaintiffs' title to the property is different and we are only required to ascertain whether the plaintiffs' title to the property is denied by the defendant or not. When the defendant positively states that he has nothing to do with the property or the title deed. it automatically follows that the title of the plaintiff is not denied in any manner. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that there being no denial of the plaintiffs' title to the property it is only Section 24(2)(b), which would apply and it follows that the Court fees is to be calculated only on the basis of the value stated by the plaintiff, vide judgment of Ramesam.J. in Venkata Rao v. Sesharattamma, 40 L.W. 680, cited above. 19. 19. It is not necessary to deal with the other documents since the Court Fees Check Slip order does not deal with those documents. Moreover, according to the plaintiffs they are mere blank papers and of no value. His statement may be true or false or frivolous. That is a matter to be decided on its merits in the suit. Even though in the notice, the Office of the Court has taken a stand that the suit will not lie in respect of other documents, in the final order on the Check Slip, the learned District Munsif, had Tightly given up the said objection. 20. Therefore, the plaintiffs' value has to be accepted and I am unable to sustain the order in the Court Fee Check Slip. 21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.