Skip to content


T.K.M. Alagappa Chetty Vs. Saminathan Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad367
AppellantT.K.M. Alagappa Chetty
RespondentSaminathan Chetty and ors.
Cases Referred and Orr. v. Mrithyunjaya Gurukkal
Excerpt:
- .....allow it to be so used as a building site.2. it is objected that it was not open to the court to value property on such at basis. reading sections 11 and 151, estates land act, it is clear that the land cannot be used for building purposes without the consent of the landlord: ramanadhan v. zamindar of ramnad (l893) 16 mad 407 and orr. v. mrithyunjaya gurukkal (1909) 24 mad 65 have been quoted. it is not argued for the respondent that the method by which the lower court assessed the market value can be justified. but it is contended that the court is exercising a jurisdiction which is vested in it when it proceeded to determine the market value on this basis. but when it is a question of a principle to be applied to the levying of court-fees, this court has frequently interfered in.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. This is a suit for ejectment and to recover possession of land

which measures about 2 acres and 16 cents. It is admittedly a raiyati land held on patta in an estate i.e. the Sivaganga Estate. It was objected that the plaint was under-valued: so the Court had to determine the market value of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge valued it on the value of the land as a building site on the hypothetical assumption that the landlord would for some nazzar, for which the Court deducted Rs. 20, be willing to allow it to be so used as a building site.

2. It is objected that it was not open to the Court to value property on such at basis. Reading Sections 11 and 151, Estates Land Act, it is clear that the land cannot be used for building purposes without the consent of the landlord: Ramanadhan v. Zamindar of Ramnad (l893) 16 Mad 407 and Orr. v. Mrithyunjaya Gurukkal (1909) 24 Mad 65 have been quoted. It is not argued for the respondent that the method by which the lower Court assessed the market value can be justified. But it is contended that the Court is exercising a jurisdiction which is vested in it when it proceeded to determine the market value on this basis. But when it is a question of a principle to be applied to the levying of court-fees, this Court has frequently interfered in revision. There is, in fact, no other remedy open if the Court proceeds on a wrong principle. It is clear that the principle on which the Court has proceeded to levy court-fees in this case is wrong; it is not entitled to proceed on a principle, at variance with the provisions of the Estates Land Act, by which without the consent of the landlord the land cannot be converted into one for building purposes. The revision must therefore be allowed with costs, and the order of the lower Court is set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //