Judgment :- The defendants filed a petition challenging the valuation of the suit filed by the plaintiff, by filing I.A.No.68(a) of 2009 in O.S.No.162 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC to decide the additional issue regarding the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs as preliminary issue and that application was dismissed by the District Munsif, as against that, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that ‘A’ Schedule property belongs to the first plaintiff and ‘B’ Schedule property belongs to the second plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enjoying the suit, Scheduled property in a peaceful manner. While describing the ‘A’ Schedule property and ‘B’ Schedule property, it has been stated in the schedule that the property is punja lands Survey Numbers are 93/A2 and 93/3A23and 93/3A3. The defendants have filed a written statement in paragraph ‘13’ wherein they have stated that the suit is not property valued and accordingly the appropriate Court fee has not been paid. Thereafter, the defendants have filed I.A.No.68(a) of 2009 in O.S.No.162 of 2008 stating that the suit properties are house sites and the plaintiffs have treated them as Ryotwari punja lands and they have paid Court fee under Section 7(1) (a) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit, according to the market value of the suit property, which is a house site and if so valued the Court will not have jurisdiction to decide the issue and therefore, the additional issues framed, is as a settlement issue. 3. The plaintiffs filed a counter stating that the suit property has been classified as Ryotwari punja lands and even the defendants have stated in the written statement that the suit property is Solai Punjai and therefore, the suit property has been property valued. 4. The learned District Munsif taking two additional issues, namely (i) whether the suit properties are valued according to the market price and appropriate Court fees has been paid and (ii) whether the suit as framed is legally maintainable and after analysing the suit as framed is legally maintainable and after analysing the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the properties are Ryotwari punja lands and the plaint has been property valued. Nevertheless, after holding that the plant has been property valued, instead, of dismissing the application, the lower Court has allowed the application and held that two additional issues regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Hence, the revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/defendants in I.A.No.68 (a) of 2009. 5. Mr. R.A. Mohanram, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the suit property is surrounded by the houses and it is unfit for cultivation and it has been treated as house site and not treated as Ryotwari punja lands and the valuation of the plaintiffs by considering the property as Ryotwari punja lands is not correct and the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit property treating the same as house site and if they were valued as the house site, the Court will not have jurisdiction and the plaintiff has to pay more Court fee. The learned counsel also relied upon the valuation Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer which was marked as Ex.P6, wherein the Village Administrative Officer stated that the suit property is not fit for agriculture and it is suitable for house site and in and around the suit property, buildings are there. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even as per the Village Administrative Officer certificate the suit property cannot be treated as Ryotwari punja lands. .6. According to me, the Village Administrative Officer’s Certificate does not support the case of the petitioner. The Village Administrative Officer has only stated that the property is not fit for agriculture and it can be used only for house site. Admittedly, the property is agriculture punja property and it was originally classified as Ryotwari punja. In courts of time, buildings were constructed in and around the suit property and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property cannot be termed as Ryotwari punja lands and it must be construed only as house site and therefore the valuation of the property as if Ryotwari punja lands cannot be accepted. At this juncture, we will have to see the pleadings in this case. In the written statement, the defendants did not state anything about the nature of the property. In paragraph ‘12’ of the written statement, he has only stated that the suit property is not property valued for the relief prayed for. At this juncture, we will have to see the pleadings in this case. In the written statement, the defendants did not state anything about the nature of the property. In paragraph ‘12’ of the written statement, he has only stated that the suit property is not property valued for the relief prayed for. The defendants have not stated that the suit property is a house site property and it is not Ryotwari punja and therefore, it cannot be valued as Ryotwari punja. It is only stated that having regard to the prayer, the suit was not property valued. In paragraph ‘4’, it has been stated that the properties originally belling to the plaintiffs and defendants and it is described as Solai Punja in Survey No.93/1. Therefore, from these averments, it can be presumed that originally the property was Ryotwari punja lands. When it is admitted that the property is Ryotwari punja lands the burden is heavily on the defendants, when he alleges that the property is not Ryotwari punja lands and it is a house site. According to me, except the Village Administrative Officer’s Certificate, no other material has been produced by the defendants to prove the property as a house site. Further, the certificate of VAO only reveals that the suit Property is not fit for agriculture purpose, can be used as house site. Further, in this case, the extent of property is three acres and hence, it cannot be stated that the property must be treated as house site property. .7. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh – vs- Paras Nath Singh and Others reported in AIR 2002 SCC 233 and in that judgment in paragraph ‘8’ it has been held as follows: .“It is well settled that the 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 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. The court shall begin with an assumption for the purpose of determining the court-fees payable on the plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. The court shall begin with an assumption for the purpose of determining the court-fees payable on the 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-fees 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. It is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of court-fee. The defence taken in the written statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of court-fee by the plaintiff.” 8. Therefore, as per the said judgment, the plaint allegations in this case is to be taken into consideration. In the plaint, it has been described as punja property and plaintiff is entitled to value the same as such. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.