Disposed

Suseela v. M.F.Rukshana Begam

Madras HC9 Jul 2014CRP/1437/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners challenged an order allowing amendment of plaint accepting lower court fees. The High Court held jewels were movable and the plaintiff should have paid fees under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 2003, directing the trial court to amend the plaint and accept additional fees before disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pay additional court fee under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 2003.

Suseela Vs M.F.Rukshana Begam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:09.07.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

CRP (PD) No.1437 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

Suseela

¶8

M.Pachiappan

¶9

.. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M.F.Rukshana Begam

¶12

The Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Kavindapady Branch, Kavindapady, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 09.12.2013 made in I.A.No.1262 of 2013 in O.S.No.210 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.A.V.Arun

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The revision petitioners herein have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 in I.A.No.1262 of 2013 in O.S.No.210 of 2011 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani.

¶18

¶19

At the time of admission, argument of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners is heard at length.

¶20

The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for the following

¶21

relief:

¶22

(i) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to take delivery of the suit properties after discharging of the Jewel Loan Account No.1501/2009 dated 17.02.2010 of the 3^rd defendant's Bank by the plaintiff;

¶23

(ii) Granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from taking delivery of the suit properties by the plaintiff from the 3^rd defendant bank.

¶24

The defendants 1 and 2/revision petitioners herein filed a written statement, wherein, in para 13, they stated that the suit was not properly valued and the Court Fee paid is not correct. After settlement of issues, both sides evidences were let in and argument was heard. At that time, the Court posed a question about the payment of Court Fee. Then the plaintiff filed the application for amendment. The trial Court, after considering the objection made by the defendants, allowed the application, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted

¶26

that the subject matter of the suit property is movable, therefore, the Court Fee

¶27

¶28

has to be assessed as per Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). But, the Court Fee was assessed under Section 25 of the Act. Furthermore, amendment has been made from Section 25(d) to Section 25(b) of the Act. But, Section 25(b) of the Act is applicable only for declaration and injunction in respect of immovable properties. Therefore, Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 2003, alone has correct provisions of law. But, the trial Court has not considered the said factum and allowed the application. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.

¶29

Perusal of the typed set of papers shows that the amendment has been carried out and the Judgment is yet to be pronounced.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.

¶31

The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for the following relief:

¶32

¶33

(ii) Granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the

¶34

¶35

defendants 1 and 2 from taking delivery of the suit properties by the plaintiff from the 3^rd defendant bank.

¶36

It is appropriate to incorporate the original details of valuation for

¶37

the relief of declaration and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶38

“ For the relief of declaration

¶39

As the relief of declaration, the value is - incapable and notional value is Rs.1,000/A Court Fee under Section 25(d) is Rs.75.50/-

¶40

After amendment has been carried out:

¶41

“ For the relief of declaration

¶42

As the relief of declaration of the suit - properties as per the Bills, the value is Rs.88,885/Half of the total value of the suit properties is Rs.44,442.50/A Court Fee under Section 25(b) of the Act is Rs.3,334.00/-

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has taken me to the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation

¶44

Act 2003, which deals with the suit for movable properties.

¶45

Admittedly, jewels have been pledged with the 3^rd defendant Bank, so, it is movable. So, the plaintiff/first respondent herein ought to have valued the suit and paid the Court Fee as per Section 24 of the Act.

¶46

¶47

It is also appropriate to incorporate Section 25 of the Act and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶48

“ 25. Suits for declaration – In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 26 -

¶49

(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand and five hundred], whichever is higher;

¶50

(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand], whichever is higher;

¶51

(c) where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees two thousand], whichever is higher;

¶52

(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 one thousand], whichever is higher.”

¶53

¶54

Section 25(b) of the Act deals with the prayer seeking for a declaration and for consequential injunction and if the relief sought for is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand], whichever is higher;

¶55

So, I am of the view that the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit property for Rs.88,885/- under Section 24 of the Act and on that basis, the Court Fee has to be paid, but, it was wrongly mentioned.

¶56

In such circumstances, it is appropriate on the part of this Court to give a direction to the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint, directing her to pay the Additional Court Fee under Section 24 of the Act, within the stipulated time. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the suit after payment of Additional Court Fee and after amendment of the plaint.

¶57

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.07.2014

ogy

The Principal District Munsif, Bhavani.

R.MALA,J.

ogy

CRP (PD) No.1437 of 2014

¶67

09.07.2014

Suseela v. M.F.Rukshana Begam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseela v. M.F.Rukshana Begam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallammal Vs Palaniammal

Smt.Radhammal Vs Mr. Baskar

Papamma Vs Venkatamma

Kanthilal Vs Pushpadevi

Krishnamoorthy Vs P.K.Ravichandran

F.Irudayaraj Vs Mrs.I.Epsiba