High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJIC.R.P.No.4198 of 2019andCMP.No.27368 of 20191.S.Sundarapandian2.S.Savitha... Petitioners Vs.1.S.Venkatachalam (Died)2.V.Savithri3.D.Parthipan4.S.Varadharaj5.V.Palanisamy6.V.Jayaprakash7.M.Jayanthi8.Minor R.NakulRep. by his Guardian mother/next friend Mr.M.Jayanthi(R1-died, Respondents 6 to 8 are brought on record as LRsof the deceased R-1 S.Venkatachalam vide order dated 22.03.2024 made in C.M.P.No. 5602 of 2024 in C.R.P.No. 4198 of 2019 by SSJ)... RespondentsPage 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order passed in the I.A.No.40 of 2016 in O.S.No.968 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore dated 06.11.2019.For Petitioner: Mr.N.C.Ashok KumarFor R1: Died (Steps taken)For R2 & R6 to R8: Mrs.V.S.Usha RaniFor R3: Not ready in noticeFor R4 & R5: Mr.Sai Srujan TayiORDERThe revision is directed against the dismissal of the application filed by the revision petitioners, seeking an inquiry under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and for a direction that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 be called upon to properly value the suit and pay the deficit court fee.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite the attention to the prayers sought for in the plaint filed by the contesting respondents. He submits that the plaint has been cleverly drafted to avoid the Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019payment of proper court fees. He further places reliance on the suit filed by the first revision petitioner in O.S. No. 1580 of 2013, against the respondents 1 to 3 before the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in respect of the very same property. In that suit, the first revision petitioner had valued the relief at Rs.5,00,000/- and paid the requisite court fee accordingly.3. He also refers to the certificate issued by the Local Planning Authority in Na.Ka.No. 3189/2014/UTK-3, dated 16.06.2014, wherein the Authority has certified that the entire Survey No.456 is classified as an industrial site. Additionally, reliance is placed on the averments made in the in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 968 of 2014, wherein there is a clear indication that a superstructure exists on the suit property. He therefore contends that the finding rendered by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs has paid the proper court fee is wholly unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. He also places reliance on following judgments of this Court:-(i) in the case of D.Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundaram reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C.2037.(ii) in the case of Dravidamani and another v. Muthukumarasamy Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019reported in 2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 352(iii) in the case of Tamilarasan vs. Latha and ors. reported in MANU/TN/4342/2020.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also places reliance on following Hon'ble Superme Court judgments:-(i) in the case of Ramadoss & 6 others v. G.Palanisamy reported in 2015 SCC Online Mad 9684(ii) in the case of Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v.Venkatachalam Chettiar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 6165. Per contra, Mrs.V.S.Usha Rani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 6 & 8, submits that the revision petitioners purchased the suit property under sale deeds dated 11.11.2013. Referring to the documents enclosed in the typed set filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, she draws my attention to the property description in the said sale deeds and submits that the petitioners themselves have described the land as agricultural 'Punjai' lands. Hence, it is not open to the revision petitioners to now contend that the property should be valued as one comprising both land and building. Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019According to her, the appropriate provision applicable would be Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. She also places reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (i) Lakshmi Ammal vs. Madhavakrishnan (K.N.) and others reported in 1978 AIR 1607 and (ii) Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Vimla reported in MANU/SC/0361/1961, wherein it has been held that an order passed under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 is not revisable.6. Mrs.V.S.Usha Rani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 6 & 8, further states that even the petitioners themselves have filed A-register extracts along with their plaint to evidence that the suit property is agricultural in nature.7. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that despite being aware that an earlier suit is pending and had been valued based on market value under Section 30 of the Act, considering the existence of buildings/superstructure and the fact that the entire survey number is classified as an industrial site, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff ought to have been similarly valued.Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 20198. On the other hand, the main defence of the plaintiffs is that the very sale deed executed by the revision petitioners itself one year prior to the institution of the present suit, classifies the property as agricultural 'Punjai' land. There is no doubt that the petitioners/defendants are entitled to raise the issue of proper payment of court fee by filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The Trial Court, however, has rendered a finding in favour of the plaintiffs, accepting that the lands are agricultural in nature.9. When a specific issue is raised regarding the non-payment of proper Court fees, the Trial Court ought to have at least insisted that the plaintiffs to substantiate the claim of the land being agricultural on the date of filing of the suit. However, the Trial Court has proceeded to presume this fact and dismissed the application filed under Section 12(2) by the petitioners/defendants. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, wherein, one year prior to the institution of the suit, the revision petitioners themselves classified the land as agricultural ‘Punjai’ land, I am of the opinion that the matter would require evidence to be adduced. The Trial Court has, however, foreclosed the issue of payment of proper Court fee by finding that the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019respondents/plaintiffs have paid proper court fee. This Court is unable to agree with the finding of the Trial Court, particularly when no documents have been produced by the respondents/plaintiffs to establish the agricultural land through revenue records as on the relevant date. Although the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that A-register extracts were filed along with the plaint to prove the land's classification as agricultural lands, the same has not been even referred to in the Trial Court’s order. 10. In view of the above, the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs has paid the proper Court fee is set aside. The issue is left open to be considered along with other issues during the course of the trial. If the Trial Court ultimately finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree and that the suit property has not been properly valued, then the Court shall direct payment of the deficit Court fee, subject to the oral and documentary evidence led by both parties. The issue of proper payment of Court fee shall be decided along with other issues to be framed and adjudicated in the main suit. It is made clear that none of the observations that have been made in the order in I.A.No.40 of 2016 shall bind the Trial Court while disposing of the main suit, including the issue relating to Court fee.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 201911. Considering the fact that the earlier suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.12. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs. 20.06.2025 nslTo1.V Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.2.The Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4198 of 2019P.B.BALAJI, J.nslC.R.P.No.4198 of 2019 20.06.2025Page 9 of 9