Madras High Court
Jeevasivakumar vs C.R.Chandran (Died) on 17 October, 2025
2025:MHC:2403
A.S.No.320 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
A.S.No.320 of 2015
Jeevasivakumar
S/o Jeeva Kuppusami
Rep. by Power of Attorney
V.Sukumar
S/o.Nandhagopal
No.10, Hospital Street
Thiru.vi.ka Nagar
Pondicherry. ... Appellant
vs.
C.R.Chandran (Died)
2.T.H.Nizamudeen ... Respondents
(RR2 brought into records as LRs of the deceased sole respondent
viz., (C.R.Chandran) vide Court order dated 10.01.2022 made in
CMP.Nos.21102 and 21103 of 2021 in A.S.No.320 of 2015)
PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2015 made in
O.S.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Puducherry.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
A.S.No.320 of 2015
For Appellant : Mr.D.Ravichander
For R2 : Mr.J.Suresh
For R1 : Died
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The appeal has been filed
challenging the rejection of the plaint consequent to the failure of the
appellant/plaintiff to pay additional court fee as directed by the III
Additional District Judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.55 of 2012, dated
09.01.2015.
2. The appellant herein filed a suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession of the suit property. He also sought for mandatory
injunction to demolish the illegal construction made in the suit property.
3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to
two persons namely Selvanathan and Pattabi as per the Release Deeds dated
25.04.1990 executed by children of one Victor Jeganathan. The plaintiff
purchased the suit properties from the duly appointed Power of Attorney of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
Selvanathan and Pattabi under Sale Deed dated 01.03.1994. When the
plaintiff visited his property on 02.04.2012, he noted that the defendant
committed trespass into the suit property and put up a construction. Hence,
the above said suit was filed.
4. The defendant filed a petition in I.A.No.158 of 2013 seeking
rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was
not properly valued. As per the plaint averment, the plaintiff valued the suit
property at Rs.5,01,000/- and paid the court fee of Rs.37,575.50/-. It was the
specific case of the defendant that he purchased the property from its
original owner under Sale Deed dated 19.03.2008, wherein the market value
of the suit property was mentioned as Rs.40,00,000/-. It was also stated by
the respondent/defendant that he obtained a Valuation Certificate from the
Taluk Office valuing the suit property at Rs.78,12,563/-. Therefore,
according to the defendant, the suit property was undervalued by the
plaintiff and hence, the proper court fee was not paid. On this ground, he
sought for rejection of the plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
5. The appellant/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the
valuation mentioned in the Valuation Certificate relied on by the
respondent/defendant. It was stated by the appellant/plaintiff that in the
Valuation Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the suit land as well as
building were valued, whereas the plaintiff sought for recovery of vacant
possession of the land alone. It was also stated by the appellant/plaintiff in
his counter affidavit that the respondent/defendant was set exparte and an
exparte order was passed on 28.11.2012, thereafter, on application filed by
the respondent/defendant, the exparte decree was set aside and the matter
was posted for filing of written statement. However, without filing the
written statement, the respondent/defendant filed a present petition seeking
rejection of the plaint, disputing the valuation adopted by the
appellant/plaintiff. It was also stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the
petition filed by the respondent/defendant without filing written statement
was not maintainable and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The Trial Court, based on the Valuation Certificate relied on by the
respondent/defendant, partly allowed the petition filed by him and directed
the appellant/plaintiff to pay the court fee on the one half of the market
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
value of the suit property under Section 25(b) of the Puducherry Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1972 (i.e., Rs.38,68,706.50/-). Since the
appellant/plaintiff failed to pay the additional court fee on the half of the
market value as fixed by the Trial Court, as a necessary consequence, the
suit was dismissed by rejecting the plaint. Though the Trial Court passed an
order as if the suit was dismissed for default, owing to the failure of the
appellant/plaintiff to pay additional court fee, in effect, it would amount to
rejection of the plaint. Therefore, the appellant has filed the present appeal
challenging the rejection of the plaint.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by relying on
Section 11 of Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1972, would
submit that the defendant can object to the valuation adopted by the plaintiff
only by filing a written statement and thereafter, can seek framing of
preliminary issue with regard to the correctness of the valuation and in the
present case, the said procedure has not been followed by the Trial Court.
The learned counsel further submitted that when the valuation adopted by
the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant, the Trial Court ought have
afforded reasonable opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to lead evidence to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
substantiate the valuation adopted by him. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Trial Court committed serious error in relying on
Valuation Certificate produced by the defendant while considering the
petition filed by him to reject the plaint.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would
submit that subsequent to the order passed by the Trial Court directing the
appellant/plaintiff to pay additional court fee, he filed an application to
extend the time for payment of the additional court fee and on his request,
the time was extended by the Trial Court. Even thereafter, without paying
the additional court fee as directed, the plaintiff filed yet another application
in I.A.No.726 of 2014 seeking payment of one half of the market value as
per the Valuation Certificate obtained by him from Taluk Office on
05.07.2014. The said application was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court
on the ground that the plaintiff failed to challenge the earlier order passed
by the Trial Court directing him to pay additional court fee as per the
Valuation Certificate relied on by the defendant. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that having accepted the
order passed by the Trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay additional court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
fee, he is not entitled to turnaround and maintain the present appeal.
9. Based on the pleadings of the parties and submission made by the
respective counsel, the following points are arising for consideration in this
appeal:-
(i) Whether the Trial Court is correct in rejecting the plaint on the ground
of undervaluation?
(ii) Whether the appeal deserves to be allowed or not?
Discussion on Point Nos.1 and 2:-
10. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and
recovery of possession along with prayer for mandatory injunction. Having
regard to the declaration and recovery of possession prayer, the court fee
shall be paid on the market value of the suit property. In the plaint, the
plaintiff had averred that the market value of the suit property was
Rs.5,01,000/- and he paid ad valorem court fee on the said value. Disputing
the valuation adopted by the plaintiff, the defendant filed an application to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
reject the plaint on the ground of undervaluation. In order to substantiate his
plea, he relied on a Valuation Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Based on
the said Certificate, the Trial Court partly allowed the petition and directed
the plaintiff to pay the additional court fee on half of the market value.
11. It is settled law that while considering the petition seeking
rejection of the plaint, the Court shall take into consideration only the
averments found in the plaint and plaint documents. In the case on hand, the
Trial Court has committed a serious error in relying on the Valuation
Certificate issued by the Tahsildar produced by the defendant to come to a
conclusion with regard to the correctness of the valuation adopted by the
appellant/plaintiff. Unless the Court is satisfied based on the averments
found in the plaint and the plaint documents, the valuation adopted by the
plaintiff is not correct, it is not entitled to reject the plaint while considering
an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. In
case, the defendant wants to dispute the correctness of the valuation adopted
by the plaintiff by relying an independent evidence, it is for him to raise a
specific plea by filing written statement disputing the correctness of the
valuation adopted by the plaintiff. Thereafter, it is open to him to file an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
application under Section 11 of the Puducherry Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1972. In the case on hand, the said procedure has not been
followed by the defendant and admittedly, the written statement has not
been filed by the respondent/defendant till date.
12. Section 11 of the Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1972, reads as follows:-
“11. Decision as to proper fee in other Courts.- (1) In
every suit instituted in any Court other than the High Court,
the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered,
decide on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint
and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed
under section 10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision
being however subject to review, further review and correction
in the manner hereinafter specified in this section.
(2) Any defendant may, by his written statement filed
before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is
recorded on the merits of the claim, but, subject to sub-section
(3) not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not
been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All
questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the
merits of the claim. If the Court decides that the subject-matter
of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is
not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint
shall be amended in accordance with the Court’s decision and
the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if
the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint
shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it
deems just regarding costs of the suit.
(3) A defendant added after issues have been framed on
the merits of claim may, in the written statement filed by him
plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly
valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions
arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before
evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of
the claim, and if the Court finds that the subject-matter of the
suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not
sufficient, the Court shall follow the procedure laid down in
sub-section (2).
Explanation. --- Nothing in this sub-section shall apply
to a defendant added as a successor or a representative in
interest of a dependant who was on record before issues were
framed on the merits of the claim and who had an opportunity
to file a written statement pleading that the subject-matter of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
the suit was not properly valued or that the fee paid was not
sufficient.
(4) (a) Whenever a case comes up before a Court of
appeal, it shall be lawful for the Court, either of its own motion
or on the application of any of the parties, to consider the
correctness of any order passed by the lower Court affecting
the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceedings in the
lower Court and determine the proper fee payable thereon.
Explanation. --- A case shall be deemed to come before
a Court of appeal even if the appeal relates only to a part of
the subject-matter of the suit.
(b) If the Court of appeal decides that the fee paid in the
lower Court is not sufficient, the Court shall require the party
liable to pay the deficit fee within such time as may be fixed by
it.
(c) If the deficit fee is not paid within the time fixed and
the default is in respect of a relief which has been dismissed by
the lower Court and which the appellant seeks in appeal, the
appeal shall be dismissed, but if the default is in respect of a
relief which has been decreed by the lower Court, the deficit
fee shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
(d) If the fee paid in the lower Court is in excess, the
Court shall direct the refund of the excess to the party who is
entitled to it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
(5) All questions as to value for the purpose of
determining the jurisdiction of Courts arising on the written
statement of a defendant shall be heard and decided before
evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of
the claim.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression “merits of
the claim” refers to matters which arise for determination in
the suit, not being matters relating to the frame of the suit, mis-
joinder of parties and causes of action, the jurisdiction of the
Court to entertain or try the suit or the fee payable but
inclusive of matters arising on pleas of res judicata, limitation
and the like.”
13. Section 11 of the Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1972 and Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1955 are in pari materia.
14. A Division Bench of this Court in S.N.S.Sukumaran vs.
C.Thangamuthu reported in 2012-5-L.W.197, while deciding the interplay
between the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and
Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
held as follows:-
“31. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
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.
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.”
15. In Rajendra Bajoria and others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and
others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 641, the Apex Court has categorically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
held that while deciding the petition for rejection of the plaint, the court
shall consider only the averments contained in the plaint and plaint
document. The relevant observation of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
“19. ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court
to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I,
(2004) 9 SCC 512], read in conjunction with the
documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any
law.”
20. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the
power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a
drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.
However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast
upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint,
read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or
whether the suit is barred by any law. ... ... ... ...”
16. This Court in Prema and others vs. J.Nethaji Subash Chandra
Bose and others reported in (2022) 4 MLJ 191, held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
“15. It is settled law that the petition for rejection of the
plaint has to be decided only based on the averments found in
the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint. ... ... ...
... ...”
17. In the case on hand, a perusal of the order passed by the Trial
Court in I.A.No.158 of 2013 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure would indicate that the Trial Court relied on the Sale Deed in
favour of the defendant and the Valuation Certificate issued by the Taluk
Office (produced by defendant) to come to the conclusion that the market
value adopted by the plaintiff was not correct. The said approach is against
the settled proposition that while considering the petition for rejection of the
plaint, the Court shall only take into consideration the averments contained
in the plaint and plaint documents. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial
Court in directing the plaintiff to pay the additional court fee based on the
document submitted by the defendant at the stage of considering the Order
VII Rule 11 application is not correct.
18. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent that subsequent to the order passed in Order VII Rule 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
application, the appellant herein filed an application seeking extension of
time and therefore, he is estopped from questioning the order. Be that as it
may, the plaintiff failed to pay the additional court fee as directed by the
Trial Court and hence, the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court. Against
the order of rejection of the plaint, the present appeal is filed, since such
order is a deemed decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of Code of
Civil Procedure.
19. The appellant while challenging the decree passed in the suit is
entitled to challenge the correctness of any interlocutory order passed by the
Trial Court. Therefore, in the present appeal filed by the plaintiff, he is
entitled to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court in
an application filed to reject the plaint on the ground of undervaluation.
Further, a perusal of the order passed in I.A.No.158 of 2013 would indicate
that the appellant/plaintiff was not given an opportunity to lead evidence to
substantiate the valuation adopted by him. As mentioned earlier, the
defendant has not filed written statement disputing the valuation adopted by
the plaintiff and the procedure contemplated under Section 11(2) of the
Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1972, has also not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
followed. Hence, this Court feels that the order passed by the Trial Court
rejecting the plaint on the ground of undervaluation is liable to be set aside
and the plaint is liable to be restored to the file.
20. It is always open to the respondent/defendant to file written
statement disputing the correctness of the valuation adopted by the plaintiff.
After filing of the written statement, it is always open to him to file an
application under Section 11(2) of the Puducherry Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1972, seeking adjudication on the correctness of the
valuation adopted by the plaintiff. If any such application is filed, the same
shall be heard and decided in accordance with law by affording reasonable
opportunity to both the parties. With this clarification, the Point Nos.1 and 2
are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents.
21. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed, judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.55 of 2012, dated 09.01.2015,
which is in the nature of rejection of the plaint for the failure of the
appellant/plaintiff to pay additional court fee is set aside. The plaint is
restored to the file with liberty to the respondent/defendant to file written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
statement as well as application under Section 11(2) of the Puducherry
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1972 as stated above.
22. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
17.10.2025
Index :Yes
Speaking order :Yes
Neutral Citation :Yes
dm
To
The III Additional District Court,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
Pre-delivery judgment made in
17.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:13 pm )
