JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') reads as under: "THE Court Fees Act, 1870 was enacted more than 80 years ago, conditions have materially changed since then and litigation has grown enormously in variety and complexity. THE application of the old rules to altered facts and the extension of the rules to cover new cases have resulted in a jumble of statutory and case law which, at many points, is indefensible on principle and is a source of all-round inconvenience. THE Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887), makes its own contribution to the incongruities with which this branch of the law abounds. Rationalization of the law relating to court-fees and suits valuation has, for the last 20 years , been regarded as an urgent measure of judicial reform. This Bill seeks to achieve that object. Rules relating to court-fees and rules relating to valuation of suits are so interlocked that it is considered expedient to have both sets of rule enacted as parts of a single Act. THE method of valuing suits forms one Chapter in this Bill. THE main purpose of this Bill is to place the law relating to court-fees and suits valuation on an ordered basis. It should not be left to the choice of a party whether a suit would be decided by a District Munsif or in a superior Court. Nor should it be easy for the litigant to determine what court-fee he would pay, by merely manipulating allegations and finding adroit language for relief. THE Bill would apply to all proceedings in courts and offices in this State, subject to two exceptions. THE first exception relates to the Presidency Court of Small Causes. THE Presidency Small Courts Act, 1882 (Central Act XV of 1882), contains specific provisions relating fee payable in proceedings in the Presidency Small Cause Courts. It has been considered proper to leave that Court untouched. THE second exception relates to proceedings under any special Act, where such Act itself specifies the fee payable. Chapter II of the Bill formulates liability to pay fee. Chapter III prescribes the procedure by which questions arising in relation to fee shall be determined. Chapter IV prescribes the method of computation of fee. THE second exception relates to proceedings under any special Act, where such Act itself specifies the fee payable. Chapter II of the Bill formulates liability to pay fee. Chapter III prescribes the procedure by which questions arising in relation to fee shall be determined. Chapter IV prescribes the method of computation of fee. Various clauses of suits are dealt with independently in separate clauses and there is a residuary clause relating to suits not other wise provided for. Fee is made payable not merely by a plaintiff who seeks and obtains relief but also by a defendant who seeks and obtains affirmative relief. In prescribing rate of fee, care is taken to see that mere alterations in language of allegations or relief do not result in any difference in the rate of fee payable. Further, the rules are so framed that, on disputes of equal value. Fees of equal amount are paid. If a person institutes a suit for a building worth Rs. 10,000, he has to institute it in a District Court or Sub-Court and pay court-fee computed on Rs.10,000. THE same rules are made applicable where such a person institutes a suit for land worth Rs. 10,000. Fee is payable in appeals on the same principles as in suits. Chapter V provides for valuation of suits. THE rules are so framed as to give finality to litigation on any subject-matter. At present, if three persons own in common properties of the value of Rs.21,000, and the value of one person's share is Rs.3,000, of another person's Rs. 6,000 and, of the other person's Rs.12,000, a suit for partition and separate possession has to be instituted in the Court of the District Munsif if the person whose share is worth Rs.3,000 happens to be the plaintiff. THE result is that, if the shares of the other two persons have to institute a suit later for partition, such suit would have to be instituted in a Sub-Court or a District Court and decisions given in the earlier suit in the District Munsif's Court may not have binding effect on the ground of res judicate in the later suit. THE decision of suits of large value by courts of limited jurisdiction and consequent inconvenience are avoided by prescribing that the value of the suit in a case as the one considered above would be the value of the entire estate. THE decision of suits of large value by courts of limited jurisdiction and consequent inconvenience are avoided by prescribing that the value of the suit in a case as the one considered above would be the value of the entire estate. THE suit in that case would have to be instituted in a Sub-Court or District Court whether the person who institutes the suit is the person whose share is worth Rs.3,000 or the person whose share is worth Rs.6,000 or the person whose share is worth Rs.12,000.similar provisions are made in regard to partnership suits, administration suits and the like. It has been made obligatory on the Court to determine issues regarding court-fee and valuation before proceeding to frame issues on the merit of the claim. THE existing provisions in the Court Fees Act, 1870, dealing with court fees payable on the grant of probates and letters of administration have been redrafted. THE provisions relating to refund are liberalized by enabling refund of half of the court-fee to be made in a case where a suit is settled before issues are framed or evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim. Ad valorem fee is made payable at a uniform rate of 7 ? percent. At present a person who institutes a suit on a promissory note for Rs. 500 pays a fee computed at 7 ? per cent, where as a person who files a suit for recovery of Rs. 500 by sale of mortgaged property pays fee 11 ? percent. THE issues arising in both the suits may be of the same kind; and where the money is not paid, attachment and sale of property in execution of the decree on the promissory note might be more protracted than sale of the property in enforcement of the mortgage decree. THE disparity in fee cannot be justified. Further in regard to debtors owing small amounts, obligation to pay a fairly high rate of fee(if the suit happens to be an "original" suit instead of a small cause suit), in additional to the debt which itself they find difficult to pay is hardship from which they should be relieved. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any justification for levying a lower rate of fee is , therefore, made uniform at 7 ? percent. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any justification for levying a lower rate of fee is , therefore, made uniform at 7 ? percent. In other respects too, an attempt is made in Bill to make the law relating to court-fee and valuation of suits uniform, logical and coherent. ( 2. ) THE reading of the Act shows that the intention of the legislature was that it should not be left to the choice of the party whether suit should be decided by the District Munsif or by a superior Court. Nor should it be easy for the litigant to determine what court fee he would pay, by merely manipulating allegations and finding adroit language for relief. In view of the objects of the Act, one of the questions, which arises for consideration in this suit , is whether the suit should be tried in this Court or deserve to be referred to the City Civil Court, Chennai, for adjudication, as the applicants ,by reducing the pecuniary valuation of suit, could have filed suit before the City Civil Court. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants vehemently contended that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down that every suit is to be instituted in the lowest Court competent to try, is not applicable to the Chartered High Court, as under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, this Court is competent to try suit of any description. ( 4. ( 4. ) CLAUSE 12 of the Letters Patent reads as under: "12 Original Jurisdiction as to suits.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court of judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arises, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court: or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras , in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees. In support of the contention that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the Chartered High Court, reliance was placed on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of V. Ramamirtham, Sole Proprietor, Glorious Pictures v. Ram Film Service (A.I.R.(38)1951 Mad. 93), wherein the question whether Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs chartered High Courts and whether in view of it all suits below Rs. 93), wherein the question whether Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs chartered High Courts and whether in view of it all suits below Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) in value should not be instituted directing the City Civil Court was answered as the under: "21.Acting under Section 3, Madras City Civil Court Act (VII(7) of 1892), an Act of the Central Legislature, the Provincial Government by notification established the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs.2500 in value and arising within the City of Madras, other than suits and proceedings cognizable by the High Court in the exercise of its admiralty, testamentary, matrimonial and insolvency jurisdiction and suits triable by the Small Causes Court under Section 2 of Madras Act V(5) of 1916, suits cognizable by the Court of Small Causes whereof the amount of value of the subject matter exceeds Rs.1000 may, at the option of the plaintiff be instituted in the City Civil Court. Section 3-A Madras City Civil Court Act (VII (7) of 1892) inserted by madras Act 1 (1) of 1935, empowered the Provincial Government by notification in the Official gazette to invest the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and proceedings of the kind specified in S.3 of such value not exceeding Rs. 10,000 as may be specified in the notification. By,G.O.No.1018 dated 22.3.1935, the Provincial Government extended the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to Rs.5000 and by a further G.O.No.4175 dated 11.1.1948 to Rs.10,000. Section 14 of the Act recognized the power of the High Court to transfer to itself a suit filed in the City Civil Court acting under C1.13 of the Letters Patent and Section 25, C.P.C.(S.24 of the CPC of 1908). Section 15 provides that the High Court is authorized to hear appeals from the City Court. Section 16 expressly declares that nothing in the Act shall affect the original jurisdiction of the High Court. Section 15 provides that the High Court is authorized to hear appeals from the City Court. Section 16 expressly declares that nothing in the Act shall affect the original jurisdiction of the High Court. Proviso (1) to S.16 requires Judge of the original side of the high Court to disallow costs to the successful plaintiff, if, in the opinion of the judge, the suit is one which ought to have been instituted in the City Civil Court proviso (2) to S.16 empowers any Judge of the High Court at any stage of any suit or proceeding is within the jurisdiction of that Court and should be tried therein. Though Section 8 of Act VII (7) of 1892 requires the City Civil Court to administered by the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the procedure in suits and other proceedings in the City Civil Court is governed by C.P.C.: (KhukchandDulaji v. Gomraj Fate Chand 68 MLJ 205 ( AIR (22) 1935 Mad 219)". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi v.Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987) 4 SCC 69 , was pleased to lay down that valuation of suit, made by plaintiff according to his own estimation of the relief claimed by him, has to be accepted by Court unless it is arbitrary, unreasonable and deliberately underestimated. ( 5. ) THE finding recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reads as under: "4.THE instant special leave petition has been filed against the said order. We have heard the learned Counsel and in our considered opinion we do not find any merit in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. It is now well-settled by the decisions in this Court in Sathappachettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra) and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v.VenkatachalamChettiar (supra) that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. THE plaintiff has valued the lease hold interest on the ba sis of the rent. Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the Courts below, is reasonable and the same is not demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of the reliefs. We, therefore, do find any reason to grant special leave to appeal asked for in the petition as the order passed in the said Revision is unexceptional. THE special leave petition is therefore dismissed. THEre will however be no order as to costs." ( 6. ) THIS Court, in the case of H.M.Mahesh, 1992(2)MLJ 444, while dealing with Section 15 of the CPC and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, was pleased to hold as under: "Section 15, C.P.C. lays down that a suit shall be filed in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the same. But this section enacts a rule of procedure and it does not affect the jurisdiction of a court of a higher grade to try the suit entertainable by court of lower grade. When a suit triable by a Court of lower grade is instituted in a Court of higher grade, the latter Court is not bound to return the plaint. It is only discretionary on the part of such latter Court (i.e.to say the Court of higher grade), either to try the suit itself or to return the plaint for presentation in the Court of lower grade. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent expressly confers jurisdiction on the original side of this Court to try all suits other than suits of a small cause nature of the value of Rs. 100/- and below. Not only has this jurisdiction not been taken away by subsequent legislation, but the course of subsequent legislation has recognized and proceeded on the basis that the jurisdiction of the High Court even in small cause suits of the value of over Rs. 100 is concurrent with that of the Small Causes Court. 100/- and below. Not only has this jurisdiction not been taken away by subsequent legislation, but the course of subsequent legislation has recognized and proceeded on the basis that the jurisdiction of the High Court even in small cause suits of the value of over Rs. 100 is concurrent with that of the Small Causes Court. Thus it is seen that Section 15 of the C.P.C. has no application to the High Courts exercising ordinary original jurisdiction when there is conflict between the Original Jurisdiction of this Court and the City Civil Court constituted under the madras City Civil Court constituted under the madras City Civil Court Act. Hence the question as to whether Section 15 of the C.P.C. governs chartered High Court has to be answered in the negative. The original jurisdiction of this Court is derived under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which empowered this Court in the exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. In view of the authoritative pronouncements, referred to above, the question to be decided is whether it can be left to the plaintiffs to value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court, can be answered in view of the provisions of the Act. ( 7. ) SECTIONS 25 (d), 27(c), and 53 read as under: "25. Suits for declaration: (d) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount in which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on (rupees one thousand), whichever is higher" 27. Suits for injunction: (c) in any other case, whether the subject matter is valued in the market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher. 53. Suits not otherwise provided for: (1) in a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the Jurisdiction of Courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same. 53. Suits not otherwise provided for: (1) in a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the Jurisdiction of Courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same. (2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the market Value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint." ( 8. ) THOUGH the object of Tamil Nadu Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 was to enact the law, so that it is not left to the choice of party as to whether the suit should be decided by the District Munsif or in the superior Court, nor it should be easy for the litigant to determine what Court fee he should pay by merely manipulating the value of the property. The provision of Act referred to above leaves no manner of doubt that the legislature has left it to the choice of the plaintiff, to assess the pecuniary value of the suit, where the subject matter of suit is not capable of any market value. When the provisions of Tamil Nadu fee and Suit Valuation Act, are read with Clause-12 of the Letters Patent, no other interpretation than the one, that it is open to the plaintiff to assess pecuniary jurisdictional value for filing the suit. ( 9. ) ONCE the value in the suit has been assessed above Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only), which is permissible under statute, the suit, as framed, would be competent before this Court. ( 10. ) THOUGH it is within the jurisdiction of this Court to see whether the valuation is bonafide and whether suit is to be tried before this Court or to be transferred to other court of competent jurisdiction, but certainly no general rule can be laid down that suit of this nature will not be competent in this Court. ( 10. ) THOUGH it is within the jurisdiction of this Court to see whether the valuation is bonafide and whether suit is to be tried before this Court or to be transferred to other court of competent jurisdiction, but certainly no general rule can be laid down that suit of this nature will not be competent in this Court. It is for the Legislature to see whether any changes in the Act are required to be made, but when the provisions of the Act are interpreted by adopting Normal Rule of interpretation that the words of the Section have to be given ordinary English meaning without adding or substituting any word thereto, except where the provision is ambiguous, then only any words can be added to achieve the object of the Act, but not in a case, where the provisions are clear and unambiguous. ( 11. ) THE suit, as framed therefore, is maintainable before this Court, though it will be open to the Court to see whether pecuniary valuation has been fixed bonafide or is arbitrary, unreasonable and deliberately over-estimated. ( 12. ) LIST the matter for hearing of applications on merit on 21.11.2011.