IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 2 - 3 – 2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.1279 of 2009 V.Suresh ... Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1.V.Kumaran 2.V.Mohankumar 3.V.Dhakshinamurthy ... Respondents/Defendants Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the docket order dated 21.04.2009 passed in unnumbered O.S.Sr.No.10795 of 2009, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for payment of the Court fee by directing the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to take up the plaint on its file and to number the same without insisting for payment of additional Court fee. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balasubramanian For Respondents: Mr. G.Nanmaran O R D E R The plaintiff in unnumbered suit on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the release deed dated 30.08.2006, executed by the respondents/defendants , in favour of the revision petitioner relating to the 'B' schedule property as null and void and also not binding on the revision petitioner/plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction. That plaint was returned by the Court below stating that the suit has to be valued under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') and the Court fee has to be paid on the value of the property for which the document was executed and as per the document, which was sought to be declared as null and void, the property was valued at Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, the Court fee has to be on Rs.15,00,000/- and that was challenged in this revision petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Mr.R.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below without properly appreciating the judgment rendered in A.I.R. ( 1972) Madras 5 in the case of (Andalammal Vs. B.Kanniah ) which was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2010 5 M.L.J. 153 (SC) in the case of ( Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna and another) erred in directing the revision petitioner to pay the Court fee on the market value of the price stated in the release deed, which is sought to be declared as null and void and the subject matter of the release deed was valued at Rs.10,000/- and that was taken into consideration while paying under Section 40 of the said Act and the Court below ought not to have insisted the revision petitioner to pay the Court fee on the value of the property as stated in the released deed. 4. According to the the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, as per Section 40 of the said Act, the amount or value of the property for which the document was executed must be taken into consideration and the basis for the purpose of valuation shall be the amount or value mentioned in the document itself and as per the judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1972 Madras 5 ( supra) the Court below erred in demanding the revision petitioner to pay the Stamp Duty on Rs.15,00,000/-. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even as per the judgment relied upon by the revision petitioner, the Court fee has to be paid on Rs.15,00,000/-, as it was stated clearly in the release deed that the value of the property released was Rs.15,00,000/- . 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that on the basis of the value of the property released viz., Rs.15,00,000/-, the Stamp Duty was paid and therefore, the Court below rightly directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff to pay the Court fee on Rs.15,00,000/- 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. It is seen from the plaint that the revision petitioner/plaintiff sought for declaration to declare the released deed executed by the respondents/defendants in his favour as null and void. Therefore, we will have to see the value given by the parties in respect of the property, which was released under the document. As per Section 40 of the said Act, the Court fee is paid on the value of the property for which the document was executed and the Court fee need not be paid on the amount or value of the property in respect of which the document was executed. That was made clear in the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1972 Madras 5 ( supra) which was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2010 5 M.L.J. 153 (SC) (supra). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Therefore, we will have to see what was the value of the property for which the document was executed. It is seen from the document viz., the release deed dated 30.08.2006, that the property released was valued at Rs.15,00,000/-. But, nowhere in the released deed any other valuation is stated regarding the property that was released. Normally, it is a common knowledge that the parties may agree for a sale consideration, but theywill have to pay the Stamp Duty on the market value, irrespective of the sale consideration agreed between the parties. In such case, when such a document is sought to be declared as null and void, it is enough if the Court fee is paid on the agreed consideration and it is not necessary to pay the Court fee on the market value of the property, which was taken into consideration for collecting the Stamp Duty. 10. But in the present case on hand, the parties have stated specifically that the value of the property released was Rs.15,00,000/- and the Stamp Duty was paid on that amount and they have not stated in the released deed that the value of the property released was Rs.10,000/-, as stated in the plaint. Therefore, as per the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1972 Madras 5 ( supra) the plaint has to be valued on the basis of the value of the property for which the document was executed and in this case, the value of the property, which was released was stated to be Rs.15,00,000/- and hence, the revision petitioner is bound to value the suit at Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, the Court below has rightly directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff to pay the Court fee on Rs.15,00,000/-. 11. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the docket order written by the Court below. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the revision petitioner is granted four weeks time to pay the Court fee deficit, as per the order of the Court below. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar sd To The I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Order in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1279 of 2009 MRD {CO} TP/18.3.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/