A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice B. Pugalendhi was approached with the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of to entertain a plaint before the District Court of Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu.
The court relied on 3 landmark judgments and the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act to hold that the plaint of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the district court on the ground that it lacked the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
This Civil revision Petition was filed as against the docket order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari in Unnumbered Original Suit in OS.No. Of 2022. The petitioner has presented a plaint seeking for a declaration to declare the sale deed dated 02.02.2021 which was registered before the Sub Registrar, Kanyakumari and the settlement deed, registered before the Sub Registrar, Rajakkamangalam as null and void and also for a permanent injunction. But the plaint was returned on the ground that the court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaint.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the suit for a declaration to declare the sale deed dated 02.02.2021 and the settlement deed dated 17.03.2022 as null and void. The entire value of the suit was Rs.1,11,06,866/-. Since the petitioner is not a party to the said documents, she sought a relief of declaration to declare the said documents as null and void. As per Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on Rupees five thousand, whichever is higher. Since the plaint filed by the petitioner falls under category specified under Section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, the petitioner has computed the Court fee by valuing the suit as Rs.5,000/- and valued the suit as Rs.1,000/- as per Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and accordingly paid the Court fee.
The learned Counsel further submitted that as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, the District Court is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, without considering the same the court returned the plaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamaleshwar Kishore singh V.Prasanth Singh, reported in 2001(4)CTC 764(sc) in support of his contention.
Observations of the Court:
The court relied on 3 judgments. The ratio and the judgments are as follows:
- Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh V. Parasnath singh 2001(4) CTC page 764
“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 the plaintiff has attempted at the 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.”
- K. Chinnathurai Vs. Allimuthu and Ors [CRP(PD) No. 937 of 2006]
“Only a party to the document alone needs to pay the court fee as valued under Section 40(1) of the Act and a third party to the document is not entitled to value the suit property under Section 40(1) of the Act. If a third party to the document is required to pay the court fees as per Section 40(1) i.e., as per the market value of the suit property, then it will result in disastrous consequences.”
- K.L.R. Niranjan and Ors. L. Leelakrishnan and Ors [C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4749 of 2013 decided on 12.04.2018]
“The proper relief is for a declaration that the sale deed is null and void and court fee payable is only under Section 25(d) of the Act…If a person is not a party to a document, he need not seek cancellation and can seek a declaration that same is null and void and pay court fee under Section 25(d) of the Act.”
The court held that admittedly, the petitioner is a third party to the document and she presented a plaint to declare the documents as null and void and also for a permanent injunction. Applying the ratio laid down in the above cited judgments, the judge held that the suit filed by the petitioner has to be valued as per section 25(d) and 27(c) of the Act and accordingly the petitioner has valued the suit and paid the necessary court fee.
Further, the court held that as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, the petitioner had rightly valued the property as per Sections 25(d) and 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and presented the plaint in the District Court, which is the competent court as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act.
Decision of the Court:
The learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari was directed to number the plaint and proceed with the same in accordance with law.
Case Title: Ghertline Pregibha vs Eveline and others
Coram: JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHI
Case No.: CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
