In Sagadevan Vs Rukmani & 4 Ors., [C.R.P (PD) No. 2944 of 2022], the Madras High Cour has stated that the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act is a substantive law and that it is in the nature of a taxing statute and therefore it must be read strictly in the context of valuation of a suit.
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS:
The Petitioner’s father purchased a property by way of two sale deeds in 1942 and 1949 respectively. After the death of his parents, the Petitioner inherited the property as the sole legal heir of the owner of the property. However, it came to the knowledge that the Respondents created Sale deeds, all dating to 1978 as if the Petitioner alienated the property to them.
The Petitioner filed a suit in the District Munsif Court at Chengapattu seeking a declaration that the three sale deeds of the year 1978 are null and void and not binding on him. The Petitioner (Plaintiff in the suit) valued the suit under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 for a maximum of Rs. 1,000/- and made payment of the corresponding Court fee. However, upon scrutiny the Court refused to number the suit on the ground that the suit had to be valued under Section 40 of the Act (value of the property) and the corresponding Court fee had to be paid. Challenging this order, the Petitioner preferred the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Madras High Court.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
- He was not a party to the sale deeds, of which declaration of nullity is sought since they are product of fraud and therefore provision under Section 40 of the Act does not apply;
- Since the suit is for a declaration of a document to which the Petitioner is not a party (alleging that the deeds are executed by fraud), provision under Section 25(d) of the Act would apply.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Civil Revision Petition allowed with a direction to take the suit on file if it is otherwise in order and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
REASONS:
- The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is a substantive law. It is in the nature of a taxing statute and it must be read strictly. An expansive definition, as given by the learned District Munsif, would not pass muster.
- A party is called upon to value the suit under Section 40 of the Act if and only if he is a party to the said document. When the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he has nothing to do with the said sale deeds and they have come into force inter se due to the fraud played by the defendants 1 to 3, to state that the valuation must be done under Section 40 is contrary to law.
- If the plaintiff had executed a power of attorney in favour of a third party and that third party had executed a sale deed, then the plaintiff can be treated as a party to the document, and he should have valued it under Section 40. That is not the situation here.
- The plaintiff totally denies any knowledge of the documents for which he seeks a declaration. Therefore, the appropriate valuation is under Section 25(d).
COUNSEL:
For Petitioner: M. Adeeb Mohammed;
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2024
(This is a judgment summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments