Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4567 (MAD)

Ramakrishnan v. G. K. Sundaram

2018-12-20

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 05.09.2008, passed in I.A.No.264 of 2008 in O.S.No.284 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. 2. The suit has been laid by the revision petitioners against the respondents for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and direction. The respondents 1 to 3 had filed the written statement seriously contesting the claim of title to the suit property by the revision petitioners on various counts and contended that the suit property belongs to the fourth respondent herein and it is seen that the fourth respondent had not been originally arrayed as a party respondent in the litigation and subsequently, impleaded. 3. 3. While so, it is found that the respondents 1 to 4 had preferred an application in the Trial Court, under Order XIV Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, contending that no portion of the suit property is an agricultural land or in the possession of the revision petitioners and according to them, they are running a High Secondary School in the suit property and the school building, auditorium, stages etc., had been constructed by them and exist in the suit property and suit property also comprises of the playground used by the School and in fact, the suit property has been in the possession of the respondents 1- 4 for more than 6 to 7 decades and despite the position being above, according to them, the revision petitioners have come forward the false suit as if the suit property is an agricultural land and the suit cannot be valued on the basis of the alleged kist paid by revision petitioners and the mere payment of the kist by itself would not confer the status of the agricultural land in respect of the suit property and according to them, the market value of the suit property is not less than Rs.3,00,00,000/- and therefore, the revision petitioners are liable to pay the proper Court fee for the above said market value of the suit property, as per Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and inasmuch as the Court fee paid by the revision petitioners, on the footing that the suit property is an agricultural land is incorrect and the valuation of the suit property had not been properly done by the revision petitioners and if the market value of the suit property is taken into consideration, even the Court would not have the jurisdiction to determine the suit and accordingly, prayed for to take up the issue regarding payment of the proper Court fee, which goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, as a preliminary one, had come forward with the said application. 4. 4. The above said application of the respondents 1 to 4 had been resisted by the revision petitioners contending that the issue regarding the payment of the Court fee, which goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, is to be determined only during the course of trial and not as a preliminary issue and on that ground alone, the application is liable to be dismissed and further, according to them, as per the revenue records, the suit property is only classified as ryotwari land or agricultural land and on that basis, the revision petitioners have paid the Court fees based on the kist collected in respect of the suit property and on the question of the alleged improper valuation of the suit property, the suit should not be dismissed and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the application. 5. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions put-forth by the respective parties, determined that the revision petitioners have failed to establish that the suit property has been classified as agricultural land or ryotwari land as put-forth by them legally and with reference to the same, holding that the revision petitioners have not placed any document worth acceptance and also finding that as per the Commissioner's report and plans, the suit property is not the agricultural land and on the other hand, as put-forth by the respondents 1 to 4, the school premises and other features are available in and around the suit property and therefore, the suit property cannot at all be an agricultural land as sought to be made out by the revision petitioners and accordingly, entertained the application preferred by the respondents 1 to 4 and resultantly, called upon the revision petitioners to properly value the suit and pay the Court fees within the time stipulated and thereby, disposed of the application. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 6. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 6. The suit has been laid by the revision petitioners for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and direction in respect of the suit property and the petitioners have pleaded in Paragraph No.16 of the plaint that the suit property is a punja land and accordingly, on the basis of the kist alleged to have been paid in respect of the suit property, valued the suit property at Rs.1,000/-, the minimum value and paid the Court fees of Rs.75.50, under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and also paid the Court fees for the other reliefs. Challenging the above said valuation of the suit property, contending that the suit property and other areas nearby are occupied by the respondents 1 to 4 and no part of the suit property is an agricultural land or put to the agricultural purpose, on the other hand, it is only the school building, auditorium, stages, playground etc., are available in the suit property and therefore, contending that the market value of the suit property is more than Rs.3,00,00,000/- and the revision petitioners had not properly valued the suit and paid the Court fees by valuing the suit property as an agricultural land on the basis of the kist alleged to have been paid in respect of the same, accordingly, come forward with the application to decide the above said issue as a preliminary issue. 7. The above said application of the respondents 1 to 4 had been resisted by the revision petitioners, on the footing that the issue relating to the valuation of the suit cannot be determined as a preliminary issue and the same could be determined only during the course of the trial and on that score, prayed for the dismissal of the application and furthermore, contended that the suit property is an agricultural land, accordingly, based on the kist paid in respect of the suit property, they had properly valued the Court fees and the same does not warrant interference. 8. 8. Insofar as the contention put-forth by the revision petitioners' counsel that the valuation of the suit and the payment of the proper Court fees cannot be taken as a preliminary issue, opposing the same, the counsel for the fourth respondent relied upon the decision in S.N.S.Sukumaran and others vs. C.Thangamuthu and others, reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705 , wherein the position of law regarding the abovesaid aspect has been outlined as follows: Civil - Determination of preliminary issue - Payment of court fee - Order XIV, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); Section 12 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 - Single Judge pointed out conflicting decisions of this Court on issue as of payment of court fee and referred matter to file of Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench in order to settle law - Hence, this Reference - Whether payment of court fee on plaint being a jurisdictional issue had to be decided as a preliminary issue - Held, Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC conferred power upon Court to pronounce judgment on all issues - However there was an exception to that general rule i.e., where issues both of law and fact arose in same suit, and Court was of opinion that case or any part thereof might be disposed of on issue of law, it might try that issue first if that issue related to jurisdiction of Court or a bar to suit created by any law - Further Section 12 of Act, enacted by State Legislature, albeit inconsistent with provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC, having been given assent by President of India, shall prevail over provisions of CPC - Thus when a Defendant came forward with a case pleaded in written statement questioning correctness of valuation of suit property and payment of court fee and asked Court, by an Application, to decide it first before deciding suit on merits, then a duty was cast upon Court under Section 12(2) of Act to first decide objection before deciding suit on merits - However before proceeding to decide objection with regard to valuation and court fee as provided under Section 12(2) of Act, Court should prima facie satisfy itself, on perusal of pleadings of parties and materials brought on record, that objection raised by Defendant had substance - Such objection with regard to improper valuation of suit and insufficiency of court fee should be entertained by Court only before hearing of suit on merits commenced and witnesses were examined - Consequently contrary view taken by Single Judges could not stand as good law - Reference answered accordingly. Ratio Decidendi "Court shall first decide objection of a party before deciding suit on merits.” 30. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and having regard to the law discussed hereinabove, the reference is answered as under :- (1) The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Section 12) enacted by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List, albeit inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Order XIV, Rule 2) and being in compliance with the requirement of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, having been given assent by the President of India, shall prevail over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) When a defendant comes forward with a case pleaded in the written statement questioning the correctness of the valuation of the suit property and payment of court fee and asks the Court, by an application, to decide it first before deciding the suit on merits, then a duty is cast upon the Court under Section 12(2) of the State Act to first decide the objection before deciding the suit on merits. (3) However, before proceeding to decide the objection with regard to valuation and court fee as provided under Section 12(2) of the State Act, the Court shall prima facie satisfy itself, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record, that the objection raised by the defendant has substance. (4) Such objection with regard to improper valuation of the suit and insufficiency of court fee shall be entertained by the Court only before the hearing of the suit on merits commences and witnesses are examined. Section 12(2) of the State Act makes it clear that such objection shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded on the merits of the case. (5) Exercise of right by the defendant as contained in Section 12(2) of the Act must be bona fide and not with an ulterior motive of dragging the suit on this issue. Section 12(2) of the State Act makes it clear that such objection shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded on the merits of the case. (5) Exercise of right by the defendant as contained in Section 12(2) of the Act must be bona fide and not with an ulterior motive of dragging the suit on this issue. Hence, the Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments in hearing of such application, and in the event the Court finds that the defendant is not diligent or co-operating with the Court in the disposal of such objection expeditiously, then the Court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit on merits and decide all issues, including the one relating to the valuation of the suit and the adequacy or otherwise of court fee, together. 9. In the light of the above position, it is seen that when the correctness of the valuation of the suit property and the payment of the Court fee is being impugned by an application of the contesting defendants, the Court is bound to decide the same under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, before proceeding with the suit on merits. In such view of the matter, the contention of the revision petitioners' counsel that the question regarding the valuation of the suit property and the payment of the Court fees thereon cannot be determined as a preliminary issue, has to be rejected. 10. As above noted, the revision petitioners have valued the suit property, on the footing that suit property has been classified as agricultural land. However, as rightly determined by the Court below, no material whatsoever worth acceptance has been placed on record to hold that the suit property has been lawfully classified as agricultural land or ryotwari land as purforth by the revision petitioners and though the revision petitioners would claim that the documents pertaining to the same are available, however not evinced any interest in producing the same in support of their case. Merely because some kist receipts had been filed, that would not be the basis for determining that the suit property is an agricultural land and accordingly, kist had been paid in respect of the same. Merely because some kist receipts had been filed, that would not be the basis for determining that the suit property is an agricultural land and accordingly, kist had been paid in respect of the same. When there is no material placed on record to hold that the suit property has been legally classified as an agricultural land or ryotwari land and accordingly, kist had been collected in respect of the same by the Revenue Authorities and furthermore, the revision petitioners had also not been in a position to identify the suit property during the course of the Commissioner's inspection, it is highly doubtful whether the revision petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as put-forth by them. Be that as it may, when there is no material placed on record whatsoever to determine that the suit property is an agricultural land and the kist had been collected lawfully in respect of the same by the revision petitioners, obviously, it is found that as determined by the Court below, the revision petitioners have not properly valued the suit and paid the Court fees thereon. 11. As found and determined by the Court below, on the basis of the Commissioner's report and plan as well as the other documents projected by the respondents 1 to 4, in all, it is found that in and around the suit property, only the school buildings, auditorium and other structures allied to the school and the playground are, as found, available and there is no trace of the suit property as being used as agricultural land, at any point of time and when such being the position, the Court below, on a proper appreciation of the materials placed on record, rightly found that the suit property is not an agricultural land as claimed by the revision petitioners and on the other hand, it is only a land, wherein the School activities are going on, in such view of the matter, rightly come to the conclusion that the revision petitioners have failed to establish the classification of the suit property as agricultural land and thereby, determined the above said issue in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 and against the revision petitioners and accordingly, called upon the revision petitioners to properly value the suit and pay the Court fees within the time stipulated under the impugned order. 12. 12. In the light of the above said discussions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.