01Facts
The petitioners filed a suit seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 277 of 2022 were null and void and not binding on them, together with a permanent injunction. They stated that they were not parties to that proceeding and valued the suit at ₹5 lakhs, paying court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4The Sub Court returned the plaint, first for alleged insufficiency of court fee and then because the court-fee valuation of ₹6,000 was said to fall below its pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioners challenged the return order under Article 227 of the Constitution
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–402Issues
i.1. Whether the Sub Court was justified in returning the plaint on the basis that the stated court-fee valuation of ₹6,000 fell below its pecuniary jurisdiction, despite the suit being valued at ₹5 lakhs
p. 5 · ¶ 4–5ii.2. Whether the Sub Court should be directed to take the plaint on file, number it, and proceed in accordance with law
p. 5 · ¶ 603Law Applied
Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 was the provision under which the petitioners paid court fee for the declaratory relief
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 3–5The Court relied on its decision in CRP (MD) No. 10 of 2023, dated 9 February 2023, which it described as holding that the plaintiff had correctly valued the property for court-fee purposes. The judgment does not set out a broader test or reproduce the reasoning in that precedent.
p. 5 · ¶ 5Provisions in the judgment · 1
Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 25
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioners had valued the suit at ₹5 lakhs, while stating a separate valuation of ₹6,000 for court-fee purposes and paying under Section 25(d).
p. 5 · ¶ 5–6Applying the approach in CRP (MD) No. 10 of 2023, the Court considered the court-fee valuation proper and rejected the basis on which the Sub Court had returned the plaint
p. 5 · ¶ 5–605Holding
The Court disposed of the revision petition and directed the Sub Court, Avinasi, to take the plaint on file, number it, and proceed in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–8It also directed the Registry to return the original papers to the petitioners’ counsel so they could be re-presented before the Sub Court within two weeks of receiving the order. No costs were awarded
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–8Original Court PDF
A. MuthulakshmivsA. P. Kumanan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
