For ryotwari agricultural land, court fee is payable on thirty times the kist value.

The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning ryotwari agricultural land.

The pleadings were complete, and two witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the petitioners-defendants filed I.A.No.785 of 2013 seeking a direction to reassess the market value of the suit property, determine the correct court fee, and direct payment of the alleged deficit court fee, relying principally on an alleged admission by P.W.2 that the property was worth more than Rs.3 lakhs per cent.

The trial Court dismissed the application. The defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the plaintiff was required to value the ryotwari agricultural land on its alleged actual market value, rather than on the statutory basis of thirty times the kist value applicable on the date of institution of the suit.

2. Whether the defendants’ belated application, filed after commencement of trial and examination of witnesses, was maintainable for determination of the alleged deficit court fee under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965.

3. Whether the alleged existence of a construction on the suit property justified reassessment of the suit valuation and interference under Article 227.

The Court applied Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965, as it stood in 2005, under which the value of a suit concerning ryotwari agricultural land could be assessed on thirty times the kist value, even where the actual market value was higher.

The Court further applied Section 12(2) of the Act, which permits the defendant to seek determination of the proper court fee, but held that such an application must be made before commencement of trial; a belated application after evidence has commenced is not maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

The limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference where the trial Court’s order discloses no jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

The Court held that the suit property was described as ryotwari agricultural land and, therefore, the statutory valuation method applicable in 2005 was thirty times the kist value, irrespective of whether the property’s actual market value exceeded that amount.

Consequently, the alleged admission of P.W.2 regarding the market value did not require the plaintiff to adopt the higher market value or pay additional court fee.

The defendants had also failed to invoke Section 12(2) before commencement of trial and had raised the objection only after the plaintiff’s witnesses had been examined, rendering the application belated and not maintainable.

The further contention that a construction existed on the property was rejected because the defendants had not pleaded its existence in their written statement, and the contention could not be introduced at that stage.

No ground for interference with the trial Court’s order was therefore established.

The alleged higher market value and unpleaded construction did not justify reopening the valuation.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, the trial Court’s order dated 15 June 2026 was upheld, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.