Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1376 (MAD)

Valliammal & Another v. M. Balaraman

2008-04-23

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2008
Judgment :- This Civil Revision is directed against the order-dated 27.07.2007 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2006 in O.S.No.2200 of 2005 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. 2. The petitioners have preferred a suit in O.S.No.2200 of 2005 before the trial Court against the respondent praying for a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 12. 2001 in Document No.4843 of 2001 alleged to have been executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent is null and void and is not binding on them and for other consequential reliefs. The said suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement wherein, it was his contention that the Document executed by the petitioners is nothing but a sale deed whereby the suit property was purchased by the respondent on a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. Subsequently, the respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.25 of 2006 praying for a direction to the petitioners to pay necessary Court fees under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. According to the respondent, the suit is one for declaration that the document is void and the petitioners being party to the document, they need to set aside the document and the petitioners are liable to pay Court fee as provided under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Even though the said application was contested by the respondent, the learned trial Judge did not accept the contentions so raised at the instance of the petitioners and ultimately as per the impugned order dated 27.07.2007, the learned trial Judge directed the petitioners to pay Court fee for cancellation of the document under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. 4. I have heard Mr. T. Easwardhas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.V. Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners are parties to the document stated to have been executed by them on 12. 2001 and found to be registered as Document No.4843 of 2001. In the said document, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is shown to be the consideration for execution of the sale deed. The present suit is one for declaration with respect to the document executed by the petitioners. 2001 and found to be registered as Document No.4843 of 2001. In the said document, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is shown to be the consideration for execution of the sale deed. The present suit is one for declaration with respect to the document executed by the petitioners. Though it is their contention that the document was executed by playing fraud and misrepresentation and without any kind of consideration, the fact remains that the petitioners are parties to the said document. It is only after taking evidence it would be proved as to whether the document was executed by playing fraud on the petitioners. However, the relief being one for declaration based on a document in which the petitioners are also parties, the Court fee is to be paid under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. Such being the case, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned trial Judge. However, the learned trial Judge has not indicated in the order as to the valuation of the suit in respect of which court fee has to be paid as provided under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. It is seen from the written statement of the respondent that the sale consideration was only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and such being the case, there will be a direction to the petitioners to pay Court fee for the amount shown in the document, viz., Rs.1,00,000/- as per Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The petitioners are granted ten weeks time to pay the balance Court fee. With the above clarification the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.