Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioners put in issue the correctness of the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, in rejecting the suit itself on the ground of nonâ€‘payment of proper Court Fee. 2. The Principal District Munsif has come to the conclusion that originally when the suit was laid by the petitioners for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of a vacant land and the consequential mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the construction put up by them, and a sum of Rs.30,100 has been paid by the petitioners themselves, as Court Fee and in such case, they are not legally entitled to contend that they have to pay the Court Fees as provided under Section 7 of the Court Fee Act. 3. I am afraid such a reasoning can be accepted to nonâ€‘suit the petitioners to sue a lis for declaratory relief of declaring the title to the property and consequential mandatory injunction against the respondents herein. 4. The facts of the case proceed as follows: The property in an extent of 10 cents belongs to the petitioners herein. The respondents/ defendants 1 and 3 on 11.11.1999 trespassed into the property and started putting up a temporary structure. On further enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the first respondent by claiming right over the property, trespassed into the same. Hence, the petitioners caused a suit notice. Having no regard to the notice, the respondents 1 and 3, who are the defendants 1 and 3 in the suit, have started putting up construction. Hence, the suit is filed for declaration of their title to the suit property in an extent of 10 cents and for mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants to demolish the structure put up by them. 5. The Trial Court, on the basis of a report submitted by the Amin, who inspected the property in person and found that there is a construction in the suit schedule property with an asbestos roofing and estimated the value at Rs.8 lakhs, directed the petitioner to pay Court Fee on Rs.8 lakhs under Section 25(a) of the Court Fee Act. On the petitioners disputing the same, the order impugned in the Revision Petition is passed rejecting the plaint for nonâ€‘payment of Court Fee on the value of Rs.8 lakhs. 6. The Court has gone through the entire plaint. On the petitioners disputing the same, the order impugned in the Revision Petition is passed rejecting the plaint for nonâ€‘payment of Court Fee on the value of Rs.8 lakhs. 6. The Court has gone through the entire plaint. The cause of action, the relief sought for and the Court Fee paid thereon. The bundle of facts, which form the cause of action, are that the plaintiffs/petitioners are the owners of the property in an extent of 10 cents in S.No.461/1 which is classified as a punja land in the Revenue Records. The said immovable property was trespassed by the defendants/respondents and they put up a small structure with an asbestos roofing over it. Thus trespassing, putting up of temporary construction with asbestos roofing and use of the same was the cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaring the right to the suit property, i.e., the vacant land and the consequential prayer for mandatory injunction for demolishing the superstructures put up by the respondents/ defendants. 7. The prayer sought for in the plaint is also very categorical in Paragraphâ€‘ 12 of the plaint i.e., for a declaration of the plaintiffâ€™s title over the suit property and recovery of possession of the same from the respondents 1 and 3 without any order for damages. The consequential relief of mandatory injunction pleaded is that the respondents 1 and 3 be directed to remove the structure put up by them, within the outer time limit fixed by the Court, in default the same could be required to be done by the Court itself at the cost of the defendants. The suit property has been stated in the schedule attached to the plaint as 10 cents of vacant land in S.No.461/1, out of total extent of 2.75 acres in the southern side with specific boundaries. 8. As seen from the plaint, the relief sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs is only for recovery of possession of the vacant land. Apart from that, the A-register has been marked at the instance of he petitioners/plaintiffs, which also fortified the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the land has been described as Ryotwari land and no construction has been noted therein. 9. Apart from that, the A-register has been marked at the instance of he petitioners/plaintiffs, which also fortified the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the land has been described as Ryotwari land and no construction has been noted therein. 9. In the light of the above factual position, if we consider Section 7 of the Court Fee Act, which prescribes the Court Fee payable depending upon the market value of the property and such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the suit. The market value of the land in suits under Sections 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 or 48 of the Court Fee Act shall be deemed to be where the land is assessed 30 times the survey assessment on the land. The proviso is not relevant to the facts of the case. 10. On the face of the above statutory provision and taking into consideration of the bundle of facts, which forms the cause of action for the suit, and the relief sought for this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs is only in respect of 10 cents of vacant land, which is assessed as Ryotwari land in the Aâ€‘Register. The payment of higher Court Fee for obvious reason by the petitioners cannot by itself be a reason to decide against the petitioners on the face of the statutory provision as stated above. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kameleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh & Others, 2001 (4) CTC 764, vividly explained the legal provision to the following effect: â€œthe 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." 12. The Supreme Court has also given guiding factors to the effect that the Court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determination of Court Fee payable on plaint that the averments made therein by the plaintiffs are correct. The Supreme Court has also given guiding factors to the effect that the Court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determination of Court Fee payable on plaint that the averments made therein by the plaintiffs are correct. Yet an arbitrary 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. 13. The reasoning stated in the other decided cases is also pointed out i.e., the determination of the market value in respect of a suit for declaration and consequential injunction shall be based on the assumption of the land by the Revenue Authorities multiplied by 30 times as provided under Section 7 of the Court Fee Act. Useful reference can be made to the judgments viz., Raman v. Rahmathunnisa and two others, 1999 (3) CTC 88 ; G. Krishnamurthy and 2 others v. Sarangapani and another, 1996 (1) CTC 280 ; Sorna Pandi Nadar v. Sivasubramania Nadar and others, 1976 TNLJ 69. 14. Yet another factor, which is also in favour of the petitioners was that immediately on laying the suit before the Trial Court, at the instance of the petitioners/plaintiffs, the Commissioner was appointed and he has filed a report to that effect at the time of filing the suit, the suit property vas a vacant land only and temporary shed with asbestos sheet has been put up and some building construction materials have been stored thereon which manifestly makes it clear that at the time of filing the suit, there is no building, much less completed construction so as to warrant the plaintiffs to value the construction for the purpose of declaration. More so in this case, the declaration relief is not in respect of the building, but it is only in respect of 10 cents of vacant land. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order of the Trial Court is erroneous in nature and the same is liable to be set aside. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Krishnakanthan & Another v. Esakki Ammal & Others