Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3500 (MAD)

P. Sekar v. V. K. Vaiyapuri

2010-08-13

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.161 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, is the revision petitioner. 3. The first respondent filed the above suit for declaration that the suit properties belong to him and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enjoying his peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit property is described as punja land of an extent of 1 acre and 94 cents and the market value of the property was arrived at by multiplying the kist by 30 times and the valuation was arrived at Rs.1,012/- and the court fee was paid. This was opposed by the 3rd defendant by filing application in I.A.No.910 of 2008 under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C stating that as per section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, when the land is Ryoatwari land, 30 times of the survey assessment can be treated as market value and as per 7(2)(g), where the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or is land not falling within the foregoing description, the court fee has to be paid on the market value. It is further stated in the said petition that the suit property is not Ryotwari land and it is a potential house site and therefore, the valuation of the property under section 7(2)(a) is not proper and the valuation has to be done as per section 7(2)(g) and on that ground, he raised two issues:- (i)whether the suit property has been properly valued and proper court fee is paid by the plaintiff; and whether the court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. The respondents filed a counter denying the allegation made in the petition that the property is only a poramboke land and pleaded that it is not a house site and the court fee paid is correct. The learned District Munsif, on the basis of the pleadings and after considering various judgments cited by the parties, held that the petition is not maintainable and the issue regrading valuation can be taken up along with other issues and there is no need to frame the same as preliminary issue. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner. 5. Mr.V.Sitharajandas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that though the original property was ryotwari punja land, it ceased to be ryotwari punja land and became a potential house land and the entire suit property is surrounded by the house sites and no cultivation is taking place in the suit property and therefore, it has to be treated as a house site and hence, the market value arrived at by treating the property as ryotwari punja land is not correct and the market value of the property should be ascertained by treating the same as house site and hence, it must be decided as a preliminary issue. He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2002 (2)CTC 513 , in the case of V.R.Gopalakrishnan vs. Andiammal and submitted that the court fee issue has to be treated as preliminary issue and it cannot be treated along with other issues. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue regarding to the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law and that cannot be decided as a preliminary issue and in support of his contention, relied upon the judgments referred to by the lower court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the counsels. 8. It is seen from the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, as per section 7, the court fee payable depends on the market value of the property and such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint. Further, as per section 7(2), the market value of the land in suits falling under sections 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be deemed to be (a) where the land is ryotwari land thirty times the survey assessment on the land and as per section 7 (2)(g) where the land is a house-site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or is land not falling within the foregoing description its market value. Therefore, it is seen from section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, if it is ryotwari land, the market value is 30 times of the survey assessment and if it is a house or poramboke or land not falling within the other description, the court fee shall be paid on the market value. 9. The law relating to trying preliminary issue has been held in the following judgments:- 2005(4) MLJ 284 , in the case of Industrial Relations Manager, Madurai Coats Limited, Papavinasam Mills (Post), Ambasamudram and others vs. Jayaraman and others, 2008(1) MLJ 75 , in the case of A.Chinnaraj and another vs. Saroja Ammal, 2008(5) CTC 792, in the case of V.L.Ramanathan vs. Salem Nagarathar Sangam, rep. by its President, M.S.B.Subramanian Chetty Naidy Thirumana Mahal, Santhi Nagar, 4th Street, Yercaud Road, Salem and 3 others, 2001(3) MLJ 403 , in the case of A.Manivannan and others vs. Sivaraj and others, 2001(2)MLJ 481, in the case of Laljivora vs. Srividya, 2003(1) CTC 87 , in the case of E.Pushpalatha vs. C.Shanmughasundaram and 2000(3) MLJ 342 , M.Thandavaraya Poosali and five others vs. M.Periyasamy Asari and nine others. 10. In all the cases, it has been held that when an issue involves a mixed question of fact and law, it is desirable for the court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. It is further held that under Order 14 Rule 2, only a question of law can be taken up as preliminary issue and the question relating to jurisdiction involves question of law and fact and the same can be taken as preliminary issue. It is further held that the issue relating to valuation is not a pure question of law and it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. 11. Further, I also held in the judgment reported in 2009(5) CTC 818 in the case of P.Arunachalam and 5 others vs.L.Thiagarajan and others, wherein the facts are almost similar and in that case also, the property was “Ryotwari punja land” and the plaintiff valued the suit property on the basis of the kist assessment. 11. Further, I also held in the judgment reported in 2009(5) CTC 818 in the case of P.Arunachalam and 5 others vs.L.Thiagarajan and others, wherein the facts are almost similar and in that case also, the property was “Ryotwari punja land” and the plaintiff valued the suit property on the basis of the kist assessment. In that context, I held that when the property is admittedly agricultural property and classified as Ryotwari punja land, even though the buildings are constructed in and around the suit property, the suit property does not loose the character of Ryotwari punja and in the absence of any evidence to prove that the suit property was used as house site, the plaintiff is entitled to treat the same as Ryotwari punja property and court fee can be paid by multiplying the costs by 30 time. Therefore, as per the above judgment, when the preliminary issue can be decided only if it is a pure question of law otherwise it cannot be decided as preliminary issue and it can be decided along with other issues. 12. Further, this Court has held in the judgment reported in 1996(1) MLJ 533 , in the case of G.Krishnamurthy and others vs. Sarangapani and another that when the lands are classified as agricultural lands in the revenue records and assessed as such, the market value can be ascertained by multiplying the survey assessment by 30 times as per section 7(2)(a). 13. In this case, it is stated by the first respondent that the property is a ryotwari punja land, it may be that the property is surrounded by house sites and that would not make the suit property as house sites and it is not the case of the revision petitioner that the first respondent has pleaded that the property is a house site and considering the extent of the property, it cannot be stated that the property is a house site and it can be agricultural property and it may become house sites. Hence, the market value of the property as stated in the plaint is correct and lower court after considering all these aspects and relying upon the various judgments held that the issue cannot be decided as preliminary issue. 14. Hence, the market value of the property as stated in the plaint is correct and lower court after considering all these aspects and relying upon the various judgments held that the issue cannot be decided as preliminary issue. 14. Further, as per the Judicial Dictionary 13th Edition, K.J.Aiyar, Ryotwari means the division of all arable land, whether cultivated or waste, into blocks, the assessment of each block at a fixed rate for a term of years and the exaction of revenue from each occupant according to the area of land thus assessed. Therefore, it is seen from the above definition even a waste land can be classified as ryotwari. Further, as per the P.Ramanatha Aiyers Law Lexicon Dictionary, Raiyat means a person holding land for purposes of agriculture. 13. In this case, as stated supra, the land was originally a ryotwari land and even according to the revision petitioner, it has been converted into house cites and the surrounding plots are house sites. Nevertheless, the character of the land owned by the respondent will not change, unless he converted the land into house sites. 14. Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of the lower court. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.