Skip to content


Ambalam S. Vaiyapuri Chetty and ors. Vs. P.K. Ramachandra thevar by His Authorized Agent and Manager, V. Kalayana Sundaram Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad1143
AppellantAmbalam S. Vaiyapuri Chetty and ors.
RespondentP.K. Ramachandra thevar by His Authorized Agent and Manager, V. Kalayana Sundaram Pillai and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....of mr. rajah iyer is untenable.3. it is unnecessary in cases of this kind to have the whole of the property valued. it is sufficient if only such portion of the property, as is the subject-matter of dispute is valued. if the defendant claims to have a right to the whole of the property, then, no doubt the whole of the property will have to be valued and the court-fee paid, as half its value. i set aside the order of the district judge and restore that of the district munsif. but, in doing so, i direct the court to which the plaint will be presented to give the plaintiff an opportunity of saying what portion of the property is in dispute and to allow him to pay the court-fee on half the value of the property that it is likely to be in dispute. but if the whole of the property is likely to.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad, setting aside the order of the District Munsif of Sattur. The petitioner's contention is that the District Judge's order is wrong and is opposed to the provisions of the Court Fees Act, Section 7, Clause IV(c). The plaintiff sues for an injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up a fence on the ground that the property is his and that the defendants have no right to it. The defendants contend that it is communal property and is not the exclusive property of the plaintiff. The suit is valued at Rs. 250, for purposes of jurisdiction and for purposes of Court-fee the relief of mandatory injunction is valued at Rs. 50. The Court-fee of Rs. 22-7-0 was paid on Rs. 200, half of Rs. 400, being the estimated value of the plaint land. The District Munsiff held that the property was worth more than Rs. 30,000 and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, with the proper Court-fee affixed to it. On appeal the District Judge held that the plaint was properly valued, set aside the order of the District Munsiff and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. It is contended before me that the suit is one for declaration and injunction, coming within Section 7, Clause IV(c) of the Court-fees Act. The plaint, as drafted, is for declaration as well as for injunction and the prayers in the plaint are for the declaration of the plaintiff's title and for a. perpetual injunction against the defendants. The plaint therefore is one which ought to be valued and Court-fee paid, as is required by Section 7, Clause IV of the Court Fees Act. The proviso to the Clause (c), is : 'that in suits coming under Clause (c) in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, such valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immovable property, calculated in the manner provided for by para. V of the section.'

2. The injunction is as regards immovable property, and therefore the proviso applies to this case. The contention of Mr. Rajah Iyer is, that the question of title is only incidentally raised and his main prayer is for injunction and that the prayer for declaration is not a necessary one. But seeing that the defendant raises the question of title in this case, and as it would be necessary for the Court to decide the question of title, before considering the question of the issue of injunction I think the contention of Mr. Rajah Iyer is untenable.

3. It is unnecessary in cases of this kind to have the whole of the property valued. It is sufficient if only such portion of the property, as is the subject-matter of dispute is valued. If the defendant claims to have a right to the whole of the property, then, no doubt the whole of the property will have to be valued and the Court-fee paid, as half its value. I set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif. But, in doing so, I direct the Court to which the plaint will be presented to give the plaintiff an opportunity of saying what portion of the property is in dispute and to allow him to pay the Court-fee on half the value of the property that it is likely to be in dispute. But if the whole of the property is likely to be in dispute, then the Court-fee will have to be paid on half the value of the whole property.

4. I allow this petition with coats in this and in the lower Appellate Court.


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