Proper Valuation Of Suit Property Stands On Different Footing Than Applicability Of Particular Provision Of Court Fee Act: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court, in J Vasanthi vs N Ramani Kanthammal, has observed that proper valuation of the suit property stands on a different footing than applicability of a particular provision of an Act under which court fee is payable and the defendant can raise the plea of jurisdiction in the latter case.

The high court, in the instant case, had upheld the trial court order wherein it held that the court fee is required to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds.

The high court also held that that payment of the court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and that has to be decided on the basis of evidence.

In this context, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra observed that the dictum in Rathnavarmaraja vs Vimla, wherein it held that it has be determined on the basis of evidence and is a matter for the benefit of the revenue and the state and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action, is not applicable in this case, as the controversy therein had arisen with regard to proper valuation, and not about applicability of particular provision of the court fee Act.

The bench observed thus: “We may reiterate that proper valuation of the suit property stands on a different footing than applicability of a particular provision of an Act under which court fee is payable and in such a situation, it is not correct to say that it has to be determined on the basis of evidence and it is a matter for the benefit of the revenue and the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. It is because the Act empowers the defendant to raise the plea of jurisdiction on a different yardstick.”