J. VASANTHI & ORS. versus N. RAMAN! KANTHAMMAL (D) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 10-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2b! 7) 9 S.C.K 625 
J. VASANTHI & ORS. 
v. 
N. RAMAN! KANTHAMMAL (D) REP. BY LRS. & ORS. 
(CivilAppeal No. 3396 of2017) 
AUGUST 10, 2017 
(DIPAK MISRA, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.J 
A 
B 
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 -
ss.25(d), 40 - Payment of court fees - Applicable provision - Suit 
by original plaintiff (respondents are her legal heirs) seeking C 
declaration that various sale deeds in relation to suit property were 
null and void and also for permanent injunction against appellants-
defendants - Appellants filed application for rejection of the plaint 
praying for directing the plaintiff to pay the court fees u!s. 40 failing 
which to reject the plaint - Application dismissed by trial court -
D 
Appeal filed by appellants, dismissed by High Court which observed 
that since the plaintiff denied execution of sale deeds on the ground 
of fraud, the court fee was payable uh.25(d) and not uls.40- Plea 
of appellant that plaintiff sought declaration for treating the 
documents as null and void which amounted to seeking cancellation 
of the sate deeds and hence, the court fee was payable uls.40 and E 
not u/s.25(d) - Held: In the instant case, the original plaintiff was a 
party to the transaction - Thus, when the plaintiff itself is a party to 
the sale deeds and seeks to get rid of the sale deed~ in substance it 
amounts to cancellation of decree - Though the prayer is couched 
in the form of seeking declaration that the document is not valid, 
the relief in substance indirectly amounts to seeking cancellation of 
the sale deed~ - Thus, court fee is payable uls.40 - Impugned orde1:~ 
passed by the trial court and High Court, being unsustainable are 
set aside - Trial court is directed to grant three months time to the 
· plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The valuation of a suit and payment of court fee 
shall depend upon the special provision in a State if provided for. 
The view taken by the Madras High Court in Chellakannu, is the 
correct exposition of law. (Para 24] [639-B] 
625 
F 
G 
H 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Chel/akannu v. Kolanji AIR 2005 Mad 405 - approved. 
2.1 Proper valuation of the suit property stands on a 
different footing than applicability of a particular provision of an 
Act under which court fee is payable and in such a situation, it is 
not correct to say that it has to be determined on the basis of 
B evidence and it is a matter for the benefit of the revenue and the 
State and not to arm a con- testing party with a weapon of defence 
to obstruct the trial of an action. It is because the Act empowers 
the defendant to raise the plea of jurisdiction on a different 
yardstick. [Para 27) [641-B-C) 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
2.2 The trial court is directed to grant three months time 
to the plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee. There shall be no 
order as to costs. [Para 28) [641-D) 
P. Thilfai Se/van v. Shyna Paul & Anr. (2014) 7 MLJ 
732 ; Shailendra Bhardwaj and others v. Chandra Pal 
and another (2013) 1 SCC 579 : (20121 10 SCR 
1125 ; Suhrid Singh alias Sardoof Singh v. Randhir 
Singh and others (2010) 12 SCC 112 : (2010( 3 SCR 
1121 ; A. Nawab John and others v. V.N. Subramaniyam 
(2012) 1 sec 
738 
120121 
6 scR 
369; 
Rathnavarmaraja v. Vim/a AIR 1961 SC 1299 : (1961) 
SCR 1015 - distinguished. 
G Seethadevi v. R. Govindaraj & Ors. (2011) 6 MLJ 
399; Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. Rep. By its Power 
Agent, Anjay Sharma, No.32 Guruswamy Road, 
Chetpet, Chennai - 600031 v. M Shanmugam & Ors. 
2006 (5) CTC 255 : (2006) 4 MLJ 924 ; Alamelu v. 
Manickammal 1979 (II) M.L.J. 8 ; Gnanambal Ammal 
v.Kannappa Pillai 1959 (l) M.L.J. 
353 
; 
K. Palaniswamy and another v. S.B. Subramani and 
another 2007 (1) CTC 300 - referred to. 
(2011) 6 MLJ 399 
(2006) 4 MLJ 924 
1979 (II) M.L.J. 8 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 5 
Para 5 
Para 12 
J. VASANTHI & ORS. v. N. RAMAN! KANTHAMMAL (D) 
627 
REP. BY LRS. & ORS. 
1959(1) M.L.J. 353 
referred to 
Para 12 
2007 (1) CTC 300 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2014) 7 MLJ 732 
distinguished · 
Para 19 
~ 
.) 
AIR 2005 Mad, 405 
· approved 
Para 24 
[2010) 3 SCR 1121 
distinguished 
Para 24 
(20121 10 SCR 1125 
distinguished 
Para 24 
[2012) 6 SCR 369 
distinguished 
Para 26 
[1961) SCR 1015 
·distinguished 
Para 27 
. 
. 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N<;>.3396 . 
of2017. 
·From the impugned Judgment and Final Ord
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.