Madras High Court
S.Chokkalingam Chettiyar vs Ravindhiranadhan on 30 November, 2021
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30 / 11 / 2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019 AND 1458 OF 2020
AND
CMP NOS.25669 OF 2019 AND 8401 OF 2020
CRP (PD) NO.2347 OF 2019
S.Chokkalingam Chettiyar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ravindhiranadhan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the judgment and decreetal order dated 01.07.2019 passed in
I.A.No.349 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Sundaravadanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
CRP (PD) NO.3888 OF 2019
S.Chokkalingam Chettiyar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ravindhiranadhan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the judgment and decreetal order dated 27.09.2019 passed in
I.A.No.677 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Sundaravadanan
CRP (PD) NO.1458 OF 2020
Ravindhiranadhan ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Chokkalingam Chettiar ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order dated 06.02.2020 in I.A.No.1255 of 2019 in
O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanan
For Respondent : Mr.P.Krishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER
In all these Civil Revision Petitions, the parties are same and the
subject matter of the property is also same.
2.In I.A.No.349 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018, the plaintiff
filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint on the basis of
the written statement, by and which, the defendant disputed the title of the
plaintiff.
3.It is well settled principles of law that whenever the title is
disputed, the plaintiff shall go for a comprehensive Suit for declaration of
title. In the instant case, originally the revision petitioner / plaintiff, filed a
Suit for permanent injunction and after filing of the written statement
disputing the title of the vendors of the plaintiff themselves has sought for
amendment of the plaint into one of declaration of title and permanent
injunction. The Trial Court has considered the issue and ordered amendment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in JHARKHAND STATE
HOUSING BOARD VS. DIDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER [CIVIL
APPEAL NO.8241 OF 2009 DECIDED ON 09.10.2018] has held as under:
"11.It is well settled by catena of judgments of this
Court that in each and every case where the defendant
disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in
all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration.
A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the
defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and
when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then
necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain
a suit for bare injunction. "
5.However, there is a serious objection raised by the revision
petitioner with respect to the valuation of the property as well as the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court to try the Suit. It is necessary for the
Trial Court to look into the issue of valuation also while ordering amendment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
sought for by the plaintiff. But however, the Trial Court has taken the
valuation given by the plaintiff as Rs.48,100/- as correct value and allowed
the application.
6.Under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1955, Court fee shall be computed on one half of the market
value of the immovable property.
7.As per Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1955, Court fee shall be payable on the market value of the
property as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
8.In the instant case, the value was fixed on the basis of the Sale
Deed by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff purchased the property in the year
2006 i.e., Rs.48,100/-. But the actual value of the property as on the date of
presentation of the plaint in the same year as on 25.06.2018 was not
calculated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
9.In fact, the plaintiff filed another interlocutory application for
amendment of the value of the Court fee from Rs.161.00 to Rs.721.50 and the
total Court fee from Rs.191.00 to Rs.751.50. The Trial Court while passing
order, has found that the valuation made by the petitioner on the basis his title
Sale Deed of the year 2006 is not correct and dismissed the application in
I.A.No.1255 of 2019 on 06.02.2020 for not producing any documents
showing the true market value of the property.
10.The procedure adopted by the Trial Court in both the above
interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.349 of 2019 and I.A.No.1255 of 2019
is not correct. As specified under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1955 the Trial Court should have gone into the issue of
market value of the property before entertaining the plaint. Admittedly, the
subject matter of the Suit property was purchased in the year 2006 for a value
of Rs.48,100/-. While ordering amendment in I.A.No.349 of 2019, the Trial
Court should have considered the correct market value of the property and
collected the correct stamp duty. Whereas, it mechanically allowed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
application on the ground that the defendant is questioning the title of the
plaintiff. Further, while an application is filed to amend the Court fee which
is wrongly calculated at Rs.191.00 instead of Rs.751.50, the Trial Court
should have called for the correct market value and directed the plaintiff to
pay the appropriate Court fee. Whereas, the Trial Court has dismissed the
application. The dismissal of the application on the finding that the valuation
of the property is not proper and the Court fee paid is not sufficient, the
resultant position will be that the plaint has to be rejected. Such a procedure
adopted by the Trial Court is not correct in the eyes of law.
11.Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1955, mandates that after hearing the both parties, shall fix the date for
hearing for arriving at the correct valuation of the property and corresponding
Court fee and then order amendment of the plaint fixing a time limit for
payment of the Court fee. The fixation of the Court fee shall be done even
before ordering the amendment of the plaint. In so far as that procedure is not
followed in the present application, the order passed by the Trial Court in
both these applications are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
12.Accordingly, the order dated 01.07.2019 passed in
I.A.No.349 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 and the order dated 06.02.2020
passed in I.A.No.1255 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 by the learned District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, stands set aside. The Trial
Court is directed to re-hear both the applications after giving ample
opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders.
13.In so far as CRP (PD) No.3888 of 2019 is concerned, the
defendant filed an interlocutory application for appointment of Advocate
Commissioner in I.A.No.677 of 2019. However, the Trial Court dismissed
the application on the ground that the title dispute with respect to the Suit
property, could be proved by submission of documents pertaining to the title
of the Suit property by parties to the Suit. The claim for appointment of
Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features is wholly
unjustifiable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
14.On the other hand, a perusal of the plaint as well as the
written statement, goes to show that the dispute relates to a larger extent of
the property and that it involves sale of properties by two channels of
persons. It is not a simple case of title dispute based on documents. But from
the perusal of the written statement and the sale transactions, the assistance of
the Advocate Commissioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, will
elucidate the matter clearly. For that purpose, the appointment of Advocate
Commissioner would be helpful.
15.The respondent / plaintiff, do not have any serious objection
for appointment of Advocate Commissioner but would only submit that the
entire extent of the property shall be measured. Here again, there is a dispute
as to the total extent of the property. According to the defendant, the extent of
the property is only 1249 Sq.ft out of 3.25 Acres, and another statement is
that it is around 12 Acres. In such a situation, the Trial Court shall apply its
mind to the exact factual position and appoint an Advocate Commissioner
setting the requirements and therefore, the order dated 27.09.2019 passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
I.A.No.677 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 stands set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the Trial Court for passing appropriate orders appointing the
Advocate Commissioner.
16.In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
30 / 11 / 2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court
Sriperumbudur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
CRP (PD) NOS.2347 & 3888 OF 2019
AND 1458 OF 2020
30 / 11 / 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
