TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chedule property raises an important question of law relating to interpretation of Section 40 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short, `the Act'). 3. The appellant owned 9.98 acres rubber plantation. She executed power of attorney No.376/2006 in favour of her own daughter (respondent No.1 herein). After sometime, respondent No.1 transferred the property to her husband (respondent No.2 herein) by registered sale deed No.1784/2007. The appellant filed O.S. No.231/2007 for cancellation of the power of attorney by alleging that respondent No.1 had misused the same and sold the property to her husband. By an order dated 21.5.2008, the 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 No.17032/2008 (C) which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court vide his order dated 26.6.2008, the relevant portion of which reads as under: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the contentions raised in the plaint, petitioner has to file an application for amendment of the plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the property for which the document was executed and submitted that the appellant had correctly paid the court fees as per the value of the property specified in the sale deed i.e., Rs. 7 lakhs. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the learned Single Judges of Madras High Court in Andalammal v. B. Kannaiah (1971) 2 Madras Law Journal 205 and of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Allam Venkateswara Reddy v. Golla Venkatanarayana and others AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 122. 7. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the expression `value of the property' for which the document was executed means market value of the property and the same cannot be read as value specified in the document. Learned senior counsel submitted that different High Courts have, following the judgment of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma AIR 1939 Madras 462, consistently held that the market value of the property has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of the court fees. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments of different High Courts - Appikunju Meerasayu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial relief, not falling under Section 26- (a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher; (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher; 27. Suits for injunction.- In a suit for injunction- (a) Where the reliefs sought is with reference to any immovable property, and (i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or (ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher; 29. Suits for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877.- In a suit for possession of immovable property under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act 1 of 1877), fee shall be computed on one-third of the market value of the property or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an award shall be deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section. 45. Suits under the Survey and Boundaries Act.-In a suit under Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, Section 13 of the Travancore Survey and Boundaries Act of 1094, or Section 14 of the Cochin Survey Act, II of 1074, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property affected by the determination of the boundary or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher. 48. Interpleader suits. (1) In an interpleader suit, fee shall be payable on the plaint at the rates specified in Section 50. (2) Where issues are framed as between the claimants, fee shall be payable computed on the amount of the debt or the money or the market value of other property, movable or immovable, which forms the subject-matter of the suit. In levying such fee, credit shall be given for the fee paid on the plaint; and the balance of the fee shall be paid in equal shares by the claimants who claim the debt or the sum of money or the property adversely to each other. (3) Value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the amount of the debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled - ten times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently - five times the revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint - fifteen times such net profits; but where no such net profits have arisen therefrom - the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above-mentioned - the market-value of the land: 10. Before proceeding further, we may notice two well recognized rules of interpretation of statutes. The first and primary rule of construction is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing under Sections 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 and 48 shall be deemed to be ten times the annual gross profits of such land where it is capable of yielding annual profits minus the assessment, if any, made by the Government. In terms of sub- section (3), the market value of a building in cases where its rental value has been entered in the registers of any local authority, shall be ten times such rental value and in other cases, the actual market value of the building as on the date of the plaint. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) lays down that market value of any property other than agricultural land and building shall be the value it will fetch on the date of institution of the suit. Sub-section (4) lays down that where subject matter of the suit is only a restricted or fractional interest in a property, the market value of the property shall be deemed to be the value of the restricted or fractional interest. Section 40 deals with suits for cancellation of decrees etc. which are not covered by other sections. If this section is interpreted in the light of the expression `save as otherwise provided' used in Section 7(1), it becomes clear that the rule enshr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly indicate that the court fee is required to be paid on the value of the property mentioned in the document, which is subject matter of challenge. 12. 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 which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any present or future right, title and interest, then it would have, instead of incorporating 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 as has been done in respect of other types of suits mentioned in Sections 25, 27, 29, 30, 37, 38, 45 and 48. 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'. 13. If the interpretation placed by the trial Court and the High Court on the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r words, the principal amount secured by it. This is the plain effect of the words of the section, and I fail to see how the method of computation fixed in S.7(v) can possibly be applied. Now as regards the saledeed, the question arises, is the value referred to in the section, the actual value of the property, that is to say, its market value or the artificial value prescribed by S.7 (v)? The last mentioned section deals with suits for possession and the legislature has expressly enacted that in such suits the value shall be determined in a particular manner. Cl. (iv-A) refers simply to the value of the property, which means value as generally understood, whereas Cl. (v) prescribes an artificial method of valuation. There is no reason to construe Cl. (iv-A) in the light of Cl. (v) which deals with a specific matter; indeed, when the legislature intends to prescribe an artificial method, it says so in express terms, as Cl. (iv-c) also shows. I am therefore of the opinion that in the case of the sale-deeds, the amount of court fee payable must be computed on the market value of the properties with which they deal. 17. In Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma (supra), the Full Bench of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N), the learned Single Judge noted that in the earlier suit, the properties were valued at Rs.4000/-, referred to Section 40(1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which is pari materia to the Section 40 of the Act and observed: that as the decree itself specified the value of the property it will fall within the language of Section 40(1), namely, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed and ordered that the court-fee has to be paid calculated on the sum of Rs.4000, which is the value given in the decree, and not the market value of the properties on the date of the filing of the plaint. (emphasis supplied) 19. In Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (1968) 83 Madras Law Weekly 789, another learned Single Judge examined the correctness of order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, who had allowed the plaintiff to pay the court-fee for the cancellation of settlement deed on the value of the document i.e. Rs.3500/-. While dismissing the revision filed by the defendants, the learned Judge referred to Section 40(1) of the Madras Act, distinguished the Full Bench judgment in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property at the date of the plaint. The Full Bench was considering the question as to the Court fee payable in a suit for cancellation of a deed of conveyance and for possession of the property covered by the deed. The court held that the plaintiff should value his relief in accordance with the provisions of S.7(4)(A), and not according to S.7(V) of the old Court fees Act, 1870. After referring to the difference of opinion between the various decisions, the Full Bench preferred the view taken in Bali Reddi v. Khatifulal Sab 59 Mad. 240, followed in Venkatakrishniah v. All Sahib 48 L.W. 277. S. 7(4-A), of the old Act is slightly differently worded and it runs as follows:- In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or the other document executed, if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancellation of other documents referred to in S. 40(1) of the new Act the valuation should be the value of the other document executed. In Balireddy v. Abdul Satar the court refers to the section which says that the value of the subject matter shall be deemed to be the amount for which the document is executed. But it confined its discussion to the actual value of the property and held that it referred only to the market value. This decision also does not refer to the valuation of the document on the basis of the amount for which the document is executed. (emphasis supplied) 20. In Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai (supra), the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court relied on the judgment of Madras High Court in Narasamma v. Satyanarayana AIR 1951 Madras 793 and observed: As I have pointed out earlier, the emphasis in S.40(1) of the Court Fees Act is regarding the subject matter of this suit and in respect of that subject matter which admittedly is immovable property it will have to be valued on the amount or valued as the property which was no doubt covered by the decree in O.S. 21/1125. But the value or amount must certainly be the market value as on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he market value of the property covered by the document and not on the basis of the valuation given in the document. 24. In P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon (supra), the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held as under: True, as contended for on behalf of the plaintiff-revision petitioner, S.40 nowhere uses the expression market value . But it is clear therefrom that the legislative intent is to levy court-fee on the just equivalent in money of the other property comprised in the decree or portion thereof sought to be set aside; or dealt with in the other document or part thereof sought to be cancelled. The section opens by saying that in a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value (emphasis supplied) fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit . Money value of a property is its worth in terms of the currency of the land or in other words, is such money equivalent thereof in open market; and not any amount less than that as where it is overvalued at a fancy-price. It cannot be that when, what is sought to be cancelled is a decree or part thereof for other property , i.e. property ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be cancelled. We are not impressed with the submission that there is a distinction between the expressions the value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed and the value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed or other document was executed for the purpose of computation of court-fees. The scheme of S.40 is to make court-fees leviable on the sum of money or portion thereof, when what the plaintiff seeks is to get rid of his obligation and liability therefor or part thereof under a decree passed or a document executed by cancellation thereof, and on the money-equivalent of the property or portion thereof, when what he seeks to get rid of is his obligation and liability in relation to that property or portion thereof under a decree passed or a document executed in respect of it by cancellation thereof. 25. In R. Rangiah v. Thimma Setty (1963) 1 Mysore Law Journal 67, the Division Bench of Mysore High Court interpreted Section 4(iv)(A) of Mysore Court Fees Act, which is substantially similar to Section 40 of the Act and held that: Now, one thing which is very clear from the paragraphs 1 2 of S.4 (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct way of understanding those words occurring in paragraph 2 of that clause is clear from the fact that S.4(iv) A does not provide merely for cancellation of a document executed for a specified consideration such as a sale deed, but also provides for the payment of Court Fee even in suits brought for cancellation of other documents such as a deed of settlement, a gift deed or a trust deed. In the latter category of cases it would not be appropriate to regard those documents as executed for a consideration or a specified amount and those cases would not be cases in which there would be any value for which the document is executed. The second paragraph which requires the payment of Court Fee on the value of the property for which the document was executed, does not, when properly understood, direct the payment of such Court Fee on the value for which the document was executed, but on the value of the property for which it was executed. In other words, the words for which occurring in that paragraph do not refer to the value but to the property to which the document relates. The words for which occurring in that paragraph, in my opinion, mean for securing which , so tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The rule stated by TINDAL, C.J. in Sussex Peerage case, (1844) 11 Cl F 85, p. 143) is in the following form: If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such cases best declare the intent of the lawgiver . Here, the question is what is clearly stated in Section 40 as the criteria for valuation of suit filed for cancellation of a document. Section 40 of the Act mandates that if a suit is filed for cancelling a document which creates, assigns or extinguishes the right, title or interest in an immovable property, if the whole document is to be cancelled, the value of the property for which the document was executed and if plaint is only to cancel part of the document, such part of the value of property for which document was executed is the basis for suit valuation. Therefore, value depends on the value of property for which document was executed and sought to be cancelled and not the value mentioned in the document. Here, a gift deed is sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is. But as the section refers to the amount or value of the property for which the document was executed , the legislative intent is clear that the basis for the purpose of valuation shall be the amount or value mentioned in the document itself. Evidently, the intention of the Legislature is that when a person seeks to cancel a document executed by himself, he shall pay Court-fee upon the value which he has chosen to put upon the property in the document he seeks to cancel. The word value ordinarily connotes the price set on a thing, and when the Legislature directs that the value of the subject-matter shall be deemed to be the amount or value of the property for which the document was executed, I see no warrant for ignoring the plain language or the section and holding that the value shall be the market value of the property. In fact, the Legislature has expressly used the words market value in twelve other sections of the Act in contra distinction to the word value used in section 40(1) of the Act. I, therefore, hold that the Court-fee paid by the petitioner upon the basis of the value of the property as given in the settlement deed is correct. 29. In Allam Venkates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the property for the purpose of court fee, that method of valuation must be adopted in preference to any other method and, as mentioned above, 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 . 31. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Balireddi v. Khatipulal Sab (supra), which was approved by the Full Bench of that Court in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma (supra) turned primarily on the interpretation of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fee Act as amended by Madras Act which refers to the value of the property simpliciter and the Court interpreted the same as market value. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Full Bench were called upon to interpret a provision like Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio of those judgments cannot be relied upon for the purpose of interpreting Section 40 of the Act. In Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (supra), the learned Single Judge rightly distinguished the judgment of the Full Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
