Madras High Court
Ghertline Pregibha vs Eveline Pregitha Reginald on 9 February, 2023
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
Ghertline Pregibha ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Eveline Pregitha Reginald
2.Prema Chellam @ Prema Reginald
@ Annalin Prema
3.Dhinesh David
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order
dated 29.11.2022, passed by the Principal District Judge,
Nagercoil in unnumbered original suit in OS.No. Of 2022 and
further for a direction directing the Principal District
Judge, Nagercoil to number of the original suit and proceed
and pass orders on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
ORDER
This Civil revision Petition is 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
2.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 dated 17.03.2022, registered before the
Sub Registrar, Rajakkamangalam as null and void and also for a
permanent injunction. But the plaint was returned that the court
is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the
plaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 is
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
4.The learned Counsel further submits 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.
5.This court considered the submissions made by the Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner.
6.The petitioner has filed the above suit to declare the
sale deed dated 02.02.2021 and settlement deed dated 17.03.2022
as null and void and also for permanent injunction. Accordingly
she has paid the court fee under section 25(d) and 27(c) of the
Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The Court has returned the plaint
that the court is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction.
The petitioner claims that the total value of the suit is
Rs.1,11,0,866/- and as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Courts Act, the District Court is having the pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
7.It is relevant to refer to a few decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, which are discussed
herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re Kamaleshwar Kishore
Singh V. Parasnath singh reported in 2001(4) CTC page 764 has
held as follows:
“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 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. The
court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose
of determining the court fees payable on plaint, that
the averments made therein by the plaintiff are
correct.”
8.In K.Chinnathurai Vs. Allimuthu and Ors [CRP(PD) No. 937
of 2006] this court held as follows:
“15... From the above decisions, it is
clear that if the plaintiffs are not parties to the
sale deed which is being attacked as sham and nominal
or on any other ground, then a suit for declaration
without asking for the relief of cancellation of the
said deed is maintainable and the suit property can
be valued under Section 25(d) of the Act and it is
not necessary to value the suit property under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
Section 40(1) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present
case the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction and there is no
prayer for cancellation of the sale deed. Further,
the plaintiffs are not parties to the said sale deed.
As per the ratio laid down in the above said
decisions, only a party to the document alone need 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.”
9.In yet another decision this Court in K.L.R. Niranjan and
Ors. L. Leelakrishnan and Ors [C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4749 of 2013
decided on 12.04.2018] has held as follows:
“15.....This stand taken by petitioners
clearly reveals that the first respondent is not
a party to the sale deed and he need not seek
cancellation of said sale deed and pay court fee
under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act. The proper relief is for a
declaration that sale deed is null and void and
court fee payable is only under Section 25(d) of
the Act. In the judgments relied on both the
petitioners and first respondent, it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
held that when a person is a party to a
document, he has to seek setting aside the same
namely cancellation even if he alleges fraud and
pay court fee under Section 40 of the Act. If a
person is not a party to a document, he need not
seek cancellation and can seek declaration that
same is null and void and pay court fee under
Section 25(d) of the Act.”
10.At this juncture, it is useful to refer to Sections
25(d) and 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and Suits
Valuation Act and the same are extracted hereunder:
“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 at which the relief sought
is valued in the plaint or on [Rupees Five Thousand],
whichever is higher.
27: Suits for injunction:
(c) in any other case, where the subject-matter
of the suit has a 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.”
11.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
ratio laid down in above cited judgments, 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.
12.Moreover the petitioner claims that the total value of
the suit is Rs.1,11,06,866/-. The pecuniary jurisdiction as per
Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act reads as follows:
“12.Jurisdiction of District Judge or
Subordinate Judge in Original suits – The
jurisdiction of a District Judge extends, subject to
the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
to all original suits and proceedings of a civil
nature, of which the amount of value of the subject
matter exceeds ten lakh rupees. The jurisdiction of a
subordinate judge extends, subject to the rules
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, to all like
original suits and proceedings, of which the amount
or value of the subject matter exceeds one lakh
rupees, but does not exceed ten lakh rupees.”
13.Therefore the petitioner has rightly valued the property
as per Sections 25(d) and 27(c) of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
14.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of
the view that the plaint presented by the petitioner deserves to
be numbered and accordingly the learned Principal District
Judge, Kanyakumari is directed to number the plaint and proceed
with the same in accordance with law. No costs.
09.02.2023
dsk
Note: Registry shall return the original papers
To
The Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023
09.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
