Judgment :- (PRAYER: Revision filed against the order passed in O.S.No.11 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi.) This revision is preferred against the order passed in O.S.No.11 of 2002 (dated 3.1.2002) on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi, deciding the Preliminary Issue No.1 and directing the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff to pay Court fee u/s 27(a) of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as TNCF & SV Act) finding that the Court fee paid u/s 27(c) is not correct. 2. The suit properties relate to the house properties at the site thereon, bearing D.No.16 in Iyalankudi Panchayat. Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 are brothers. The fourth Defendant is the wife of the first Defendant. Case of the Plaintiff is that his brothers, the Defendant 1 to 3 were employed in Malaysia. The Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from out of his own income by the Sale Deed dated 09.11.1961. The Defendants 1 to 3 have not contributed any amount from out of their income. In 1965, the Plaintiff has constructed two houses bearing D.Nos.16 and 17. While so, claiming D.No.16 to their house, the fourth Defendant - wife of the first Defendant has created a Othi Deed in favour of the fifth Defendant. The fourth Defendant has no such right to execute the Othi Deed. The Plaintiff has issued notice to the Defendants 4 and 5. The Defendants have sent reply, containing false allegations and claiming that Defendants 1 and 3 have contributed money for purchase and construction of D.No.16. The second Defendant has made a false claim, contending that he had contributed amount for the purchase and construction of D.No.17. Since the Defendants 1 to 4 are laying false claim to the suit property, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the suit property. 3. The Defendants 1 to 4 have filed Written Statement. According to them, the suit property was purchased jointly in the name of the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 to 3 and their father and the fourth Defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 have contributed amount for construction of houses. Along with the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 to 3 are also paying the house tax and the electricity consumption charges. D.No.16 belongs to the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 1 to 3 have contributed amount for construction of houses. Along with the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 to 3 are also paying the house tax and the electricity consumption charges. D.No.16 belongs to the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3. When the first Defendant came to india, the suit property was leased on the fifth Defendant. The Plaintiff's claim that the suit property is his absolute property is unsustainable. 4. The Defendants 5 to 8 have filed Written Statement adopting the defence of the Defendants 1 to 4. That apart, in the Written Statement of the Defendants 5 to 8, objection is raised for the payment of Court fee u/s 27(c) of the Act. According to the Defendants, since the Plaintiff's title is denied, Court fee ought to have been paid u/s 25(1). The market value of the suit property is more than Rs.3,00,000/- and if the suit property is properly valued u/s 27(a), the District Munsif Court would not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. They have also raised the plea that the suit is not maintainable in view of the prohibition under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act. On the above pleadings, the following three preliminary issues were framed: - 1.Whether the suit property is not properly valued? 2.Whether the District Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 3.Whether the suit is barred by Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988? 5. Upon hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif found that a cloud is cast upon the title of the Plaintiff and hence the Court fee paid u/s 27(c) is incorrect and that the Court fee ought to have been paid u/s 27(a) of the TNCF & SV Act by valuing the property at its market value. Other points urged by the Defendants that District Munsif Court has no jurisdiction and that the suit is barred by the provisions of Benami Transaction Act were negatived. 6. Aggrieved over the order directing the Plaintiff to pay the Court fee u/s 27(a) of the TNCF & SV Act, the Plaintiff has preferred this revision. Respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8 have entered appearance through their counsel Mr.K.Govi Ganesan. Notice sent to the Respondents 3 and the fourth Defendant returned unserved. Service held sufficient. Heard the arguments of the Revision Petitioner and the Respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8. 7. Respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8 have entered appearance through their counsel Mr.K.Govi Ganesan. Notice sent to the Respondents 3 and the fourth Defendant returned unserved. Service held sufficient. Heard the arguments of the Revision Petitioner and the Respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8. 7. Referring to the Written Statement, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has contended that the trial Court was not right in referring to the Written Statement and directing the Petitioner to pay the Court fee u/s 27(a) of TNCF & SV Act. It is submitted that the denying should be gathered from the plaint and not from the Written Statement. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon AIR 1971 AP 142 , 2002 SAR Civil 69; 1998 1 CTC 560 . It is further contended that when the issues are yet to be framed, the finding of the trial Court directing the Plaintiff to value the suit property at its market value and directing him to pay Court fee u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act is not correct. 8. Submitting that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are brothers and that the property was purchased by the Plaintiff and the Defendants jointly, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that even by a perusal of the plaint averments, denial of title is made clear. Drawing the attention of the Court to averments in paragraph 5 of the Plaint, the learned counsel has submitted that from paragraph 5, it is very clear that the Plaintiff's title has been denied and that the Sale Deed is in favour of not only the Plaintiff but also the Defendants 1 to 3. Submitting that though the suit is filed for bare permanent injunction, the Respondents ought to have sought for declaration. The learned counsel has contended that the suit is valued u/s 27(c) TNCF & SV Act. In view of the denial of title, the Court fee ought to have been paid u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act and that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from error, warranting interference. 9. The learned counsel has contended that the suit is valued u/s 27(c) TNCF & SV Act. In view of the denial of title, the Court fee ought to have been paid u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act and that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from error, warranting interference. 9. In consideration of the submissions by both the parties, the impugned order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this revision: - 1.In the light of denial of Plaintiff's title, is not the trial Court right in holding that the Court fee paid u/s 27(c) TNCF & SV Act is incorrect? -and- 2.Whether the order directing the Plaintiff to pay the Court Fee u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act valuing the property at its market value suffers from any error warranting interference? 10. The suit property relates to Ilayankudi Panchayat, East west ... 13.12.0 cubit feet North South ... 17.0.0 cubit feet and the houses thereon, bearing D.Nos.16 and 17 and an house. The suit property was purchased under the Sale Deed dated 9.11.1961. The sale Deed is in favour of the Plaintiff Defendants 1 to 3 and their father Sivsami Chettiyar. Case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property out of his own amount and that Defendants 1 to 3 have not contributed any amount. Further case of the Plaintiff is that he himself has constructed the houses bearing D.Nos.16 and 17 out of his own amount and that the Defendants 1 to 3, who have settled in Malaysia, have not contributed any amount. The Defendants 1 to 3 have clearly denied the Plaintiff's claim of his exclusive right in the suit property. 11. Even in the plaint, in paragraph 5, it is alleged that the fourth Defendant, wife of the first Defendant has Othied the house to the fifth Defendant. The Plaintiff has sent pre-suit notice. In reply, the Defendants have clearly denied the claim of the Plaintiff contending that the suit property was jointly purchased by them. In reply sent, the second Defendant has claimed that he has constructed the house D.No.17. The Defendants 1 and 3 have claimed that they have constructed the house bearing D.No.16 and that the houses bearing D.No.16 and D.No.17 which are the suit properties, belong to the joint family. In reply sent, the second Defendant has claimed that he has constructed the house D.No.17. The Defendants 1 and 3 have claimed that they have constructed the house bearing D.No.16 and that the houses bearing D.No.16 and D.No.17 which are the suit properties, belong to the joint family. The Plaintiff denies the Defendants' plea stating that the Defendants 1 to 3 are in Malaysia and have not contributed any amount. 12. Though the Plaintiff has denied the Defendants' claim, it is relevant to note that the Plaintiff's title had been denied even prior to the suit. By a reading of the plaint averments, the denial of Plaintiff's title is clear. In paragraph 5, 6 and 7 denial of Plaintiff's title is clearly alleged. Though the Plaintiff has filed the suit for bare permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating, since the plaint itself contains the allegation of denial of Plaintiff's title to the suit property, the suit falls within the ambit of section 27 of Act. Section 27 (A) TNCF & SV Act reads:- "27.Suits for injunction – In a suit for injunction- (a)Where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and (i)where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or (ii)where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher". Clause (a) of the section provides that where relief is sought with reference to immovable property, Plaintiff's title to which is disputed by Defendant, Court-fee should be paid on one half of the value of the property, which in case of land shall be computed in the manner prescribed by Section 7. Thus clause A provides that where the relief is sought for with reference to the immovable property, Plaintiff's title is disputed by the Defendant, Court-fee should be paid on one half of the property. Since in this case suit property refers to house site and the constructed house thereon, the market value should be computed in the manner prescribed under section 7 of the Court-fee Act. In this case, the Plaintiff has clearly averred in the Plaint that his title to the suit property, which is a immovable property, is denied. Since in this case suit property refers to house site and the constructed house thereon, the market value should be computed in the manner prescribed under section 7 of the Court-fee Act. In this case, the Plaintiff has clearly averred in the Plaint that his title to the suit property, which is a immovable property, is denied. Hence the learned District Munsif was right in finding that the Court-fee ought to have been paid u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act. 14. Placing reliance upon 2002 SAR Civil 69 (Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh Vs.Paras Nath Singh and others), the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has contended that the Court fee is to be paid on the Plaint as framed, and the defence taken in the Written Statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of the Court fee by the Plaintiff. In this case, dehors the Written Statement, denial of Plaintiff's title is made clear in the Plaint. To know that the Plaintiff's title is denied the allegations in the plaint would be sufficient; for that purpose one need not go into the Written Statement. Further, the said suit before the Supreme Court was a suit for partition. In view of the denial of Plaintiff's title in the Plaint, the case on hand is a clear case where the Plaint ought to have been valued u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act. 15. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff has also relied upon 1998 1 CTC 560 (N.Ramachandran Vs. Munisamy and six others). Referring to a number of decisions, the learned Judge has held "Court-fee is to be paid based on averments in the Plaint and uninfluenced by the averments in the Written Statement". The said suit is also a suit for partition. As discussed earlier, this case is a suit for bare permanent injunction. Denial of Plaintiff's title is clearly alleged in the Plaint itself. The said decisions are not applicable to the case in hand. 16. In fact, in 2000 SAR Civil 69, the Supreme Court has held that the tactics adopted in drafting the plaint to evade payment is to be taken note of and the Supreme Court has observed that correct Court-fee is to be collected. The said decisions are not applicable to the case in hand. 16. In fact, in 2000 SAR Civil 69, the Supreme Court has held that the tactics adopted in drafting the plaint to evade payment is to be taken note of and the Supreme Court has observed that correct Court-fee is to be collected. The Supreme Court has held: - "Court-fees Act, 1870, Sec.7 and Suits Valuation Act 1887 - Court fees and valuation of suit - Court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint the Plaintiff has attempted at evading payment of Court fee or unless there be a provision of law requiring the Plaintiff to value the suit and pay the Court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the Plaintiff - Court shall being with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the Court fee payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the Plaintiff are correct – yet an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of Court fee and fixed for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some Court which it does not have, or depriving the Court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, can also be interfered with by the Court – substance of relief sought for and not the form will be determinative of the valuation of suit and payment of Court fee – defence taken in Written Statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of Court fee by the Plaintiff. The case on hand is a clear instance where the Plaint has been drafted to evade payment of Court fee. Primafacie the suit property has been jointly purchased by the Plaintiff and his brothers Defendants 1 to 3 and their father Sivasami Chettiar. Though the Defendants have denied the Plaintiff's claim to exclusive right of title, the Plaintiff has presumed his title and filed the suit for bare permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating. Though the suit is for bare permanent injunction, the relief in substance sought for is only to determine the Plaintiff's title. 17. Though the Defendants have denied the Plaintiff's claim to exclusive right of title, the Plaintiff has presumed his title and filed the suit for bare permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating. Though the suit is for bare permanent injunction, the relief in substance sought for is only to determine the Plaintiff's title. 17. Emphasizing the duty cast upon the Advocates and litigants in properly valuing their suits to augment the revenue of the State by paying proper Court-fee, this Court in 2003 (4) CTC 268 (Solaiammal (died) and another Vs. Rajarathinam and five others) has held: - 24.Indeed the allegations in the plaint should normally govern the frame of suit. Nevertheless Courts have to be not only vigilant and read between the lines with a view to arrest the tendency of the litigant to undervalue the relief, pay minimum Court fee and obtain substantial relief, but also ensure that the State does not lose revenue. This principle has been emphasized by the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts. In Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prasad and others, AIR 1973 SC 2384 , the Supreme Court has held thus: - "The Courts in deciding the question of Court fee should look into the allegations in the Plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for." 25.Thus while verifying/considering the question of Court fee, the Court shall not be carried by the form in which the plaint is drafted. The Court has the onerous duty of going into the substance to ascertain the base for the reliefs claimed and the reliefs that are really emerging from the averments and the relief asked for in the Plaint. The cardinal principle that should be borne in mind while disposing a question relating to Court fee or verifying the plaint is that the Court should not be carried away by the form in which the plaint is drafted; but the Court should keep in mind the substance to ascertain the actual relief asked for." 18. The arguments advanced onbehalf of the Revision Petitioner that the Plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent injunction simplicitor and that the Court fee is correctly valued u/s 27(c) TNCF & SV Act, does not merit acceptance. The arguments advanced onbehalf of the Revision Petitioner that the Plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent injunction simplicitor and that the Court fee is correctly valued u/s 27(c) TNCF & SV Act, does not merit acceptance. Finding of the District Munsif Ilayankudi that the suit is not properly valued and that the suit ought to have been valued u/s 27(a) TNCF & SV Act is well balanced, based upon the pleadings and the materials. There is no reason warranting interference. 19. For the reasons stated above, the order passed in O.S.No.11 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi is confirmed and this revision is dismissed. The Plaintiff is directed to suitably amend the Plaint and pay necessary Court fee. Three months time (from the date of receipt of a copy of this order) is granted to the Plaintiff to comply with this order, failing which the Plaint shall be rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.