Suit for cancellation of sale deed - directing the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the property, in respect of the sale deed are set aside is not correct - suit has to value based on the value mentioned in the sale deed
Citation
CDJ 2010 SC 422
Satheedevi vs Prasanna and others
Head note
Constitution of India - Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 40 - Question of law relating to interpretation of Section 40 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - The appellant filed suit for cancellation of the power of attorney by alleging that of misused the same by executing the sale deed with that property - trial Court directed the appellant to pay court fees on the market value of the plaint schedule property. The appellant challenged that order in Writ Petition which was disposed of by the High Court - In furtherance of the direction given by the High Court, the appellant applied for and she was granted permission to amend the plaint - the trial Court directed the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the plaint schedule property which was assessed at Rs.12 lakhs per acre - Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the above mentioned order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge -
If the legislature intended that fee should be payable on the market value of the subject matter of the suit filed for cancellation of a document, the requirement of payment of fees on value of subject matter, specifically provided for payment of court fee on the market value of the subject matter of the suit - The legislature may have also, instead of using the expression "value of the property for which the document was executed", used the expression "value of the property in respect of which the document was executed". However, the fact of the matter is that in Section 40(1) the legislature has designedly not used the expression `market value of the property' - If the interpretation placed by the trial Court and the High Court on the expression "value of the property for which the document was executed" is accepted as correct then the word `value' used in Section 40(1) of the Act will have to be read as `market value' and we do not see any compelling reason to add the word `market' before the word `value' in Section 40(1) of the Act - Relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court, SC views that Madras High Court had rightly observed that when there is a special rule in the Act for valuing the property for the purpose of court fee, that method of valuation must be adopted in preference to any other method and, Section 40 of the Act certainly contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of court fee and we do not see any reason why the expression `value of the property' used in Section 40(1) should be substituted with the expression `market value of the property'.
- Hence the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court as also the order passed by the trial Court directing the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the property, in respect of the sale deed are set aside. The trial Court shall now proceed with the case and decide the same in accordance with law.
(Para, 12,13,30& 32)
Case Law Referred:
1. Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy (1972) Kerala Law Times 774
2. P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon AIR 1982 Kerala 35
3. Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai (2006) 3 Kerala Law Times 527
4. Andalammal v. B. Kannaiah (1971) 2 Madras Law Journal 205
5. Allam Venkateswara Reddy v. Golla Venkatanarayana and others AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 122.
6. Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma AIR 1939 Madras 462
7. Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai (1964) Kerala Law Times 895
8. Uma Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad and others (1966) Kerala Law Times 1046
9. T. Tharamma v. T. Ramchandra Reddy and others AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 333
10. Sengoda Nadar v. Doraiswami Gounder and others AIR 1971 Madras 380
11. S. Krishna Nair and another v. N. Rugmoni Amma AIR 1976 Madras 208 12. Smt. Narbada v. Smt. Aashi AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162
13. Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan 1958 SCR 360
14. Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323
15. Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation (1966) 3 SCR 366
16. Venkata Narasimha Raju v. Chandrayya AIR 1927 Madras 825
17. Balireddi v. Khatipulal Sab AIR 1935 Madras 863
18. Venkatasiva Rao v. Satyanarayanamurthi AIR 1932 Madras 605
19. Navaraja v. Kaliappa Gounder (1967) 80 Madras Law Weekly 19 (SN)
20. Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (1968) 83 Madras Law Weekly 789
21. Venkatakrishniah v. All Sahib 48 L.W. 277
22. Narasamma v. Satyanarayana AIR 1951 Madras 793
23. R. Rangiah v. Thimma Setty (1963) 1 Mysore Law Journal 67
24. Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 534
25. Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533
Comparative Citations:
2010 (2) KLT 642 (SC), 2010 (5) MLJ 153, 2010 (5) SCJ 120, 2010 (5) SCC 622; 2010 (3) ILR(Ker) 247, 2010 AIR(SCW) 3754, 2010 (5) LW 209, 2010 AIR(SC) 2777, 2010 (6) SLT 353
If the legislature intended that fee should be payable on the market value of the subject matter of the suit filed for cancellation of a document, the requirement of payment of fees on value of subject matter, specifically provided for payment of court fee on the market value of the subject matter of the suit - The legislature may have also, instead of using the expression "value of the property for which the document was executed", used the expression "value of the property in respect of which the document was executed". However, the fact of the matter is that in Section 40(1) the legislature has designedly not used the expression `market value of the property' - If the interpretation placed by the trial Court and the High Court on the expression "value of the property for which the document was executed" is accepted as correct then the word `value' used in Section 40(1) of the Act will have to be read as `market value' and we do not see any compelling reason to add the word `market' before the word `value' in Section 40(1) of the Act - Relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court, SC views that Madras High Court had rightly observed that when there is a special rule in the Act for valuing the property for the purpose of court fee, that method of valuation must be adopted in preference to any other method and, Section 40 of the Act certainly contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of court fee and we do not see any reason why the expression `value of the property' used in Section 40(1) should be substituted with the expression `market value of the property'.
- Hence the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court as also the order passed by the trial Court directing the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the property, in respect of the sale deed are set aside. The trial Court shall now proceed with the case and decide the same in accordance with law.
(Para, 12,13,30& 32)
Case Law Referred:
1. Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy (1972) Kerala Law Times 774
2. P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon AIR 1982 Kerala 35
3. Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai (2006) 3 Kerala Law Times 527
4. Andalammal v. B. Kannaiah (1971) 2 Madras Law Journal 205
5. Allam Venkateswara Reddy v. Golla Venkatanarayana and others AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 122.
6. Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma AIR 1939 Madras 462
7. Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai (1964) Kerala Law Times 895
8. Uma Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad and others (1966) Kerala Law Times 1046
9. T. Tharamma v. T. Ramchandra Reddy and others AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 333
10. Sengoda Nadar v. Doraiswami Gounder and others AIR 1971 Madras 380
11. S. Krishna Nair and another v. N. Rugmoni Amma AIR 1976 Madras 208 12. Smt. Narbada v. Smt. Aashi AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162
13. Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan 1958 SCR 360
14. Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323
15. Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation (1966) 3 SCR 366
16. Venkata Narasimha Raju v. Chandrayya AIR 1927 Madras 825
17. Balireddi v. Khatipulal Sab AIR 1935 Madras 863
18. Venkatasiva Rao v. Satyanarayanamurthi AIR 1932 Madras 605
19. Navaraja v. Kaliappa Gounder (1967) 80 Madras Law Weekly 19 (SN)
20. Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (1968) 83 Madras Law Weekly 789
21. Venkatakrishniah v. All Sahib 48 L.W. 277
22. Narasamma v. Satyanarayana AIR 1951 Madras 793
23. R. Rangiah v. Thimma Setty (1963) 1 Mysore Law Journal 67
24. Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 534
25. Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533
Comparative Citations:
2010 (2) KLT 642 (SC), 2010 (5) MLJ 153, 2010 (5) SCJ 120, 2010 (5) SCC 622; 2010 (3) ILR(Ker) 247, 2010 AIR(SCW) 3754, 2010 (5) LW 209, 2010 AIR(SC) 2777, 2010 (6) SLT 353
Comments
Post a Comment