AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Vimala, J.—The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 137 of 2010 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. The defendants filed I.A.
No. 13 of 2011 under Order 14 Rule 2 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C., and Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act with a prayer to decide the court fees
as a preliminary issue. The contention in the affidavit is that the suit property is a house site and the property ought to have been valued not on the
basis of the tax assessment, but on the basis of market value. This petition was dismissed and as against which, the present revision petition has
been filed.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court did not frame proper issues for consideration and without affording
sufficient opportunity has decided the issue. This contention does not appear to be correct.
A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court would reveal that the trial Court has taken note of the following facts:-
a) It is nowhere contended by the defendants that the suit properties are not ryotwari lands.
b) Just because the suit properties are located in and around the residential area, it will not lead with the conclusion that the suit properties would
also be used as a house site and that the property ought to have been valued as a house site.
c) No document has been filed by the defendants to show that the suit properties are house sites, when the plaintiffs have raised a specific
contention that the suit properties are ryotwari lands.
Based on these reasoning, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the valuation of the property and the consequent Court fee paid is also
correct.
It is not enough for the revision petitioner to contend that the worth of the property is in crores without showing how the properties can be
construed as house site, when the chitta and patta has been filed to show that the suit properties are ryotwari lands. Hence, the order passed by
the trial Court did not suffer from illegality or irregularity and therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. After this case was heard on merits,
the issue regarding maintainability of revision in respect of matters governing petitions under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C., was raised in C.R.P. (MD)
Nos. 1085 to 1088 of 2005 and 1068 of 2006 wherein it has been decided that Revision Petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel
appearing on both sides agreed that the decision taken in those cases would be applicable to this case also. Therefore, on the question of
maintainability also, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.