IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.06.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 The Sanmarga Sangam Registration No.123/1958 Rep.
by its Secretary E.Palani, Shri Vaishnavi Shrine M.T.H.Road, Thirumullaivoyal Chennai-600 109..Petitioner in both CRPs.
versus 1.P.Srinivasan 2.S.Haricharan ..Respondents in both CRPs.
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2014 made in I.A.Nos.88 and 112 of 2013 in O.S.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Ananda Bagavathi C O M M O N ORDER
The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2014 made in I.A.Nos.88 and 112 of 2013 in O.S.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2.The revision petitioner herein as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 2012 for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
The defendants/respondents herein have filed an application in I.A.No.339 of 2012 to decide the issue with regard to valuation of the suit property and payment of court fee and then they filed their written statement in the suit.
The trial Court, after hearing both sides, partly allowed the application directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint with regard to the market value of the suit property and to pay the deficit court fee.
3.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.88 of 2013 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.to amend the plaint, in which, the plaintiff has sought for three amendments, that is to substitute the Secretary name E.Palani to the Sangam in both the short and long cause titles and also incorporating one portion in respect of payment of Court fee in para 16(a) of the plaint.
Even though the trial Court allowed the substitution of name of the Secretary in both the short and long cause titles, it disallowed the application in respect of third amendment in relation to payment of court fee, which is against law.
Therefore, the revision petitioner/Sangam preferred C.R.P.(PD)No.1624 of 2014.
4.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the plaintiff/Sangam has filed an another application in I.A.No.112 of 2013 to entitle benefit under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010 by seeking exemption from payment of Court fee and they can pay only Rs.100/- as per the above said G.O.It is further submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and valued the suit property at Rs.10,26,000/- and paid the court fee of Rs.38,513.50.
5.At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the respondents filed an application in I.A.No.399 of 2012 under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 and the trial Court, after considering both sides, held that the suit property is not an agricultural property and hence, directed the plaintiff to fix the value at Rs.500/- per sq.ft.
and further directs him to pay the additional Court fee and that has been challenged by way of revisions by both the parties in C.R.P.Nos.3824 and 4052 of 2012, which were dismissed by confirming the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.339 of 2012, against which, the revision petitioner/Sangam preferred S.L.P.Nos.11193 and 11194 of 2013, which were disposed of on 29.04.2013 with liberty to the respondents/defendants to agitate the matter before the trial Court by invoking benefit under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010.
Therefore, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.112 of 2013.
The trial Court, after considering the objections raised by the respondents/defendants and arguments made by both sides, dismissed the application in I.A.No.112 of 2013, against which, the revision petitioner/Sangam preferred C.R.P.(PD) No.1625 of 2014.
6.During arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that now the revision petitioner/Sangam is not entitled any benefits under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010.
But the revision petitioner is entitled benefit only under G.O.Ms.No.1574, Home, dated 12.06.1972.
Hence, he prayed for leave to agitate the same by filing fresh application before the trial Court.
7.Resisting the same, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the revision petitioner/Sanmarga Sangam is neither religious nor charitable trust.
Hence, neither G.O.Ms.No.363 nor G.O.Ms.No.1574 is applicable to the facts of the present case.
So no leave to be granted to the plaintiff/revision petitioner to agitate the same before the trial Court and therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the revisions.
8.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papeRs.9.One Parthasarathy, who is the father of the fiRs.defendant/fiRs.respondent, has established the Sanmarga Sangam, which is registered under Society Act, as 123/58, dated 08.12.1958.
It is an admitted fact that Mr.S.Parthasarathy, is the founder member and the 1st President of the Sanmarga Sangam and 11.91 acres have been donated to the Sangam by way of Gift Deed.
10.According to the fiRs.defendant, who is the son of the said Mr.Parthasarathy, the remaining land to the extent of 2.85 acres is the suit schedule property, which is neither gifted nor donated to the Sangam.
11.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the remaining land to the extent of 2.85 acres is also donated to the Sangam and hence, the Sangam filed the suit for declaration of title and also recovery of possession, since the suit property is in the possession of the respondents/defendants.
12.At the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff valued the suit under Section 25(b) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and fixed the market value of the suit property as Rs.10,25,000/- and valued the property at Rs.10,26,000/- and paid Court fee as Rs.38,513.50.
As soon as the respondents/defendants entered appearance, they disputed that the suit has not been properly valued and it is under valued and hence they filed an application in I.A.No.339 of 2012 under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.
After examination of witnesses and marking of documents, the trial Court held that the suit property is not an agricultural land and so fixed the market value of the suit property as Rs.500/- per sq.ft.
and directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint regarding market value of the suit property and to pay the additional court fee, against which, both the plaintiff and defendant preferred the revisions in C.R.P.Nos.3824 and 4052 of 2012, which were dismissed by this Court confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.339 of 2012, against which, the revision petitioner preferred S.L.P.Nos.11193 and 11194 of 2013 before the Apex Court.
13.At the time of pendency before the Apex Court, the revision petitioner would submit that since the petitioner/Sangam is a religious institution, the petitioner is entitled to benefit under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010 and hence, the plaintiff ought to have paid only Rs.100/- as Court fee.
The Apex Court, on considering the same, disposed of the petitions on 29.04.2013 stating that it is left open to the trial Court to decide as to whether the benefit of the notification can be made available to the plaintiff/Sangam so as to pay the Court fee to the extent of Rs.100/- and also giving liberty to the respondents/defendants to contest the matter before the trial Court in accordance with law.
14.Thereafter, the present application in I.A.No.112 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner before the trial Court on 24.10.2013 for seeking benefit under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010.
15.It is to be noted that in para-6 of the grounds of revision itself, the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner/Sangam is not entitled any benefits under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010 and he is entitled benefit only under G.O.Ms.No.1574 Home, dated 12.06.1972.
Therefore, the revision petitioner sought for leave to raise the same before the trial Court.
16.At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010, it was specifically mentioned that the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby reduces to a maximum of rupees one hundred, the fee payable under the said Act in respect of the suits filed by religious institutions for restoration of immovable properties and for declaration of title over the immovable properties of temples under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.
17.It is true, the suit has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
But whether the plaintiff is a religious trust or not, to be decided only at the time of trial.
At that juncture, no relief has been granted to the revision petitioner and however, it is left open to the revision petitioner to agitate before the appropriate forum.
The plaintiff/revision petitioner is not entitled any benefits under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010, is negatived, which is also admitted by the revision petitioner.
So the impugned order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.112 of 2013 does not warrant any interference.
Therefore, C.R.P.(PD) No.1625 of 2014 deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
18.As far as C.R.P.(PD) No.1624 of 2014 is concerned, as per the Government notification under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).the religious institution can alone pay the maximum fee to the extent of Rs.100/-.
As already discussed above, whether the plaintiff is a religious trust or not, to be decided only at the time of trial.
Furthermore, it is admitted by the revision petitioner that he is not entitled any benefits under G.O.Ms.No.363 Home (Courts-VIA, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010.
Under such circumstances, I am of the view, the amendments as sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff has become infructuous.
Therefore, C.R.P.(PD) No.1624 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
19.In the result, (i) C.R.P.(PD)No.1624 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
(ii) C.R.P.(PD)No.1625 of 2014 is dismissed.
(iii) Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
20.06.2014 Internet:yes kj To III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
R.MALA,J.
kj C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 20.06.2014