Madras High Court
S.Mahendhiran vs S.Velmurugan on 22 June, 2021
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and
CMP.No.171 of 2021
1.S.Mahendhiran
S/o. Late J.B.Sundaram
2.M.Sri Hariharan,
S/o. S.Mahendhiran
3.Minor M.Sarvesh Raj,
Rep by guardian father
S.Mahendhiran ... Petitioners / Defendants
Vs.
S.Velmurugan,
S/o. Late. Subramanian ... Respondent / Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 02.03.2020 made
in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.234 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional
District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunth
For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondent : Mr.C.Vigneswaran
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the defendant in O.S.No.234 of 2016, which is
pending on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.
2.O.S.No.234 of 2016, had been filed for partition and separate
possession of undivided 2/4 share in Item No.1 of the suit property as
described in the schedule to the plaint and an undivided 1/4th share in Item
No.2 of suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint. Even before
proceedings further, it must be mentioned that the plaintiffs' claim of such
share, is based on a Will that had been executed on 23.09.2002 which had also
been registered as Document No.501 of 2002. A Codicil dated 21.09.2006 had
also been executed and registered as Document No.446 of 2006.
3.The issues surrounding the execution of the Will and the issues to be
decided only during the course of trial. The claim of the plaintiff will have to
be proved and established only during the course of trial. It would not be
appropriate on my part even to go into a cursory examination with respect to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
either the claim made in the plaint or in the written statement.
4.However, it appears that the plaintiff taking advantage of Section 37
(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 had paid Court
Fees accordingly, claiming to be in possession. That issue was questioned by
the revision petitioner before this Court in CRP No.510 of 2014. By Judgment
dated 13.02.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court stated that the plaintiff
cannot take advantage of Section 37 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and that he should pay Court Fees under Section 37
(1) of the said Act and should value the plaint properties at the market value.
The plaintiff then valued the properties at Rs.1,000/- per Sq.ft and paid Court
Fees under Section 37(1) accordingly.
5.This valuation has been seriously disputed by the defendant who
claimed that the guideline value of the concerned Sub Register Office shows
that the guideline value was atleast Rs.5,000/- during the relevant period or
during the block period at the time of which the suit was filed in the year 2016.
It was therefore claimed that there should be a revision of the Court Fees paid
and that the plaintiff should be called upon to value the suit properties at
Rs.5,000/- per Sq.ft and accordingly has to pay necessary Court Fees in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
accordance with the same.
6.Taking that as an issue, the revision petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is noted that learned counsel has
also entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff.
7.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the
guideline value cannot always be considered as the market value of a property.
8.These are issues which can be decided only by the learned I Additional
District Judge, where the suit is pending. It would only be appropriate that this
particular issue is resolved and the learned Judge gives a finding whether the
suit in O.S.No.234 of 2016 had been properly valued and whether proper
Court Fees had been paid or not. The said issue can be taking up suo-motu as a
direction of this Court in this revision petition. Further the learned Judge can
also give a finding with that respect if an application is filed by either one of
the parties raising those issues. The Court may take up such application and
grant time for filing counter. After considering the relevant documents, the
learned Judge may give a finding with respect to the valuation of the suit and
the Court Fees paid in the said suit. It is imperative that this particular issue is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
settled I am confident that a just decision would be given by the learned Judge
on these aspects.
9.With the said observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed
of and an opportunity is granted to either one of the two parties to file
necessary application taking the plea of the valuation of the suit as an issue,
failing which, the learned Judge may take it up suo motu and also invite the
parties to address the Court on the said issue. No further orders required.
10.With the said observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also
closed. No order as to costs.
22.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssi
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ssi
CRP(PD)No.21 of 2021
and CMP.No.171 of 2021
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
