- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
G. Seethadevi v. R. Govindaraj
Factual and Procedural Background
The present revision challenges an order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, in an unnumbered Original Suit (O.S) filed on its file. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit against the respondents seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 25.04.2008 executed purportedly through a Power of Attorney is null and void and not binding on her. Additionally, the petitioner sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from altering the physical features of the suit property. The trial court directed the petitioner to pay court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The petitioner challenged this direction by filing the present civil revision petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is liable to pay court fee under Section 25(d) or under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, in a suit for declaration that a sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney is null and void when the petitioner denies execution of the Power of Attorney.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner denies having executed any Power of Attorney in favor of one Bhaskaran in respect of the suit property.
- Bhaskaran is unknown to the petitioner and is an employee of the first respondent's petrol bunk.
- The sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney is therefore invalid and not binding on the petitioner.
- Relying on the decision in Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam (2006-4-L.W. 176), the petitioner argued that a suit for declaration that a sale deed is null and void should be valued under Section 25(d) of the Act if the plaintiff was not party to such sale deed.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents relied on the decision in M. Abdul Muthalip v. M. Samsudeen (2009 (4) L.W 650), where it was held that when a sale deed is executed through a Power of Attorney and the Power of Attorney is admitted, the suit must be valued under Section 40 of the Act and not under Section 25(a).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam, 2006-4-L.W. 176 | A suit for declaration that a sale deed is null and void could be valued only under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act if the plaintiff was not party to such sale deed. | The court applied this precedent to hold that since the petitioner denied execution of the Power of Attorney, the suit fee must be assessed under Section 25(d) and not Section 40. |
| M. Abdul Muthalip v. M. Samsudeen, 2009 (4) L.W. 650 | When a sale deed is executed through a Power of Attorney and the Power of Attorney is admitted, the suit must be valued under Section 40 of the Act. | The court distinguished this precedent on the basis that in the present case the Power of Attorney was denied by the petitioner, unlike in M. Abdul Muthalip where it was admitted. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the plaint averments and noted that the petitioner denied executing any Power of Attorney in favor of Bhaskaran, who is alleged to have executed the sale deed on her behalf. The petitioner also stated that Bhaskaran is unknown and an employee of the first respondent. Given these facts, the court reasoned that the suit is essentially for declaration that the sale deed executed through the Power of Attorney is null and void and not binding on the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not admit the execution of the Power of Attorney, the court held that the valuation of the suit must be governed by Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which applies to suits for declaration of nullity of documents where the plaintiff was not party to the document. The court distinguished the respondents' reliance on the precedent where the Power of Attorney was admitted, which justified valuation under Section 40. Therefore, the trial court's direction to pay court fee under Section 40 was found to be unjustified and liable to be set aside.
Holding and Implications
The civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the court below directing the petitioner to pay court fee under Section 40 of the Act is set aside.
The direct effect of this decision is that the petitioner is not required to pay court fee under Section 40 but under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. No broader precedent beyond the facts of this case is established.
The present revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur dated 05.10.2009 made in unnumbered O.S on its file.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above referred suit and the defendants thereon are the respondents.
3. The petitioner has filed the abovesaid suit against the respondent for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.04.2008 said to have been executed by him through his power agent is null and void and not binding on him and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner altering the physical features of the suit property. The court below directed the petitioner to pay the court fee as required under Section 40 of the Court Fee Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present civil revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is the case of the petitioner that she never executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Bhaskaran in respect of the suit property. It is further stated in the plaint that the said Bhaskaran is unknown to the petitioner and he is an employee of the first respondent in the petrol bunk. Thus, it is stated in the plaint that the petitioner has not executed any Power of Attorney and the sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner is not valid. In such circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has to pay the court fee under section 25(d) or under section 40 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2006 (5) CTC 255 : 2006-4-L.W. 176, (Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam), wherein this Court has held that ‘a suit for declaration that a particular sale deed is null and void could be valued only under section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act if on plaint averments it is found that the plaintiff was not party to such sale deed.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision reported in 2009 (4) L.W 650, (M. Abdul Muthalip v. M. Samsudeen) and contended that in the said decision, it has been held that when the sale deed has been executed through Power of Attorney and when the Power of Attorney is admitted the suit has to be valued only under section 40 of the Act and not under section 25(a) of the Act.
6. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. In the case on hand, it is to be seen that the case of the petitioner is that she has not executed Power of Attorney in favour of one Bhaskaran so as to execute the sale deed in favour of third parties. That apart, it is contended that the said Bhaskaran is unknown to the petitioner and he is an employee of the first respondent in his petrol bunk. When such statement has been made in the plaint, the court fee that has to be payable on the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner viz., for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.04.2008 is null and void and not binding on the petitioner, under section 25(d) of the Act and not under Section 40 of the Act. The petitioner has not admitted the execution of Power of Attorney. The court below is not justified in directing the petitioner to pay the court fee under section 40 of the Act. In the case relied on by the respondents, the Power of Attorney was admitted by the respondents/plaintiffs therein and hence, this Court in the said decision has directed the party to pay the Court Fee under section 40 of the Act.
8. In view of the abovestated position, I am of the considered view that the order of the court below directing the petitioner to pay the court fee under section 40 of the Act is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. The civil revision petition stands allowed. No costs.
VCJ/VCS
Alert