Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 177 (MAD)

A. Thirunavukkarsu v. T. Sreedevi

2008-01-22

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The revision emanates from the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, in an unnumbered suit in O.S.SR.No.3833 of 2007 dated 010. 2007. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner for declaration of his title. The plaintiff has valued the suit under section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which was questioned by the Office returning the plaint stating that the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fees under Section 25(a) or under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The learned District Munsif had taken up the issue on the representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the court and had passed the impugned order that there is no reason to exclude the relief sought for by the plaintiff under Section 25(a) or 25(b) of the Act and accordingly returned the plaint for representing the same after paying the necessary Court fees under section 25(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Munsif, the present revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on 2006(4) MLJ 924 (Siddha Construction (P) Ltd., rep. by its Power Agent Anjay Sharma, Chennai, Vs. M.Shanmugam and others), would contend that in a suit for declaration the Court fee is to be paid under section 25(d) of the Act. The facts of the said case is that:- "The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void and not binding on him. The learned Judge of this Court who had disposed of the said revision petition had observed that the plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2002 / revision petitioner therein is not a signatory to the impugned sale deed and he has not asked for any cancellation of the same and the relief sought for under the plaint is a declaration that the sale deed dated 310. 2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void. 2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff/revision petitioner therein has not asked for a declaration of title in respect of the property in dispute, but he sought for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void. Only under such circumstances, it has been held by the learned Judge of this Court in the above said ratio that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff under Section 25(d) of the Act is correct." But that is not the case on hand. The plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has filed the suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to him and that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the name of the defendant and the sale consideration was paid by him for the impugned three sale deeds of the year 2002, which are standing in the name of the defendant. Under section 25 of the Act if a suit for declaratory decree or order is filed and the prayer is for declaration and for possession of the property the Court fee is to be paid under Section 25(a), and if the suit is for a declaration and for consequential injunction the Court fee is to be paid under Section 20(b), and if the suit is for plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing the Court fee is to be paid under Section 25(c), and in other cases the Court fee is to be paid under Section 25(d) of the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that since the plaintiff had filed the suit only for declaration it will come only under the category of Section 25 (d) of the Act and the plaintiff need not pay Court fee under Section 25(a) or 25(b) of the Act as directed by the Court below. But I am of the view that even though there is no specific relief for recovery of possession, the plaintiff under the suit has sought for the relief of declaration that the suit property belongs to him under the impugned three sale deeds of the year 2002 which stood in the name of his daughter, the defendant in the suit. But I am of the view that even though there is no specific relief for recovery of possession, the plaintiff under the suit has sought for the relief of declaration that the suit property belongs to him under the impugned three sale deeds of the year 2002 which stood in the name of his daughter, the defendant in the suit. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by the learned District Munsif, the Court fee is to be paid only under Section 25(a) of the Act and not under Section 25(d) of the Act. 4. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order passed in unnumbered suit in O.S.SR.No.3833 of 2007 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram. For representation of the plaint after paying the necessary Court fee under Section 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act one month time from this date is granted to the revision petitioner. No costs.