1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2367 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Jothi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.A.Francis 2.C.Raja .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 08.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.583 of 2010 by the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Sundar ORDER The order dated 08.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.583 of 2010 by the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.583 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 on the side of the plaintiff as petitioner so as to get necessary permission to mark the document dated 06.05.2006. The Court below has allowed the same and thereby directed the petitioner/plaitniff to pay stamp duty penalty as per Schedule I, Article 63 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that under the document dated 06.05.2006, two items of properties have been dealt with and the first item is nothing, but godown and the second item is nothing, but a leasehold right of a vacant site and further in the document in question consideration has been mentioned as 13½ sovereigns, but the Court below has not independently decided the amount of consideration in respect of godown and amount of consideration in respect of leasehold right of vacant site and under the said circumstances the finding given by the Court below is totally erroneous and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. As stated earlier, in the impugned order it has been clearly stated that in respect of vacant site and also in respect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 building, the petitioner/plaintiff is bound to pay stamp duty penalty as per Schedule I, Article 63 coupled with Article 23 of the Indian Stamp act, 1899. 6. The only point that has been putforth in the present petition is that the Court below has failed to ascertain the sale consideration of building and also sale consideration of leasehold right of the vacant site. In fact, in the document in question no such distinction has been made. Under the said circumstances, the Court below has passed its order. 7. Considering the fact that under the document in question two items of properties have been dealt with and the first item is nothing, but a godown and the second item is in respect of leasehold right of a vacant site, the Court must ascertain consideration of godown as well as leasehold right of vacant site on the basis of the total consideration mentioned in the document in question. But as rightly pointed out on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court below has not done it. Since stamp duty penalty can be calculated as per the law mentioned supra only on the basis of consideration, the point urged on the side of the revision petitioner is very much essential and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Court below. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.583 of 2010 by the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.583 of 2010 is remitted to the file of the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. In the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli both the petitioner and respondents are directed to file relevant documents for the purpose of ascertaining consideration of each item mentioned in the petition. After hearing both sides, the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli is directed to pass suitable order on the basis of relevant provisions of law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Third Additional District Munsif Court,Tirunelveli. +1cc to Mr.S.S.Sundar, Advocate, Sr.No.44756 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2367 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 smn/sma/9.1.2012/3c/2p 20.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/