Madras High Court
Shenbagam vs Padmini on 10 October, 2022
C.R.P. No. 3874 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No. 3874 of 2017
and
C.M.P. No. 18105 of 2017
1. Shenbagam,
W/o. Ramanathan
2. Rajmohan,
S/o. Ramanathan ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Padmini,
S/o. Dhanabalu Kounder
2. Rani,
D/o. Seethavedhanayagam
3. Vetriselvi,
D/o. Seethavedhanayagam
4. Nalini,
D/o. Suburaya kounder
5. Priya,
D/o. Suburaya kounder ... Respondents
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No. 3874 of 2017
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the Fair and decreetal order dated 10.08.2017
passed in I.A.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of Principal
Sub-Court, Villupuram.
For Petitioners : Ms.R.Meenal
For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajasekar for R1
R2 to R5 – No appearance
ORDER
The Revision Petitioners are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No. 170
of 2013 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Villupuram, which was filed by
the respondents/plaintiffs herein for the relief of partition and other
consequential relief in respect of suit property stating that it is a joint family
property.
2. The Revision Petitioners, as defendants contested the suit and they
have filed an application in I.A.No. 58 of 2017 under Order 14 Rule 2(2)
C.P.C. r/w Sec.12(3) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act,
1955 praying the court to decide the issue whether the suit has been valued
properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The said application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No. 3874 of 2017
was contested by the plaintiffs. On hearing submissions of both sides, the
trial court dismissed the application stating that if the property is in joint
family property, it presumes that he is in joint possession and unless he is
excluded from such possession and the exclusion pleaded by the defendant
can be decided on elaborate evidence both oral and documentary and it
cannot be decided in the preliminary issue. For that, he relied upon the
judgment reported in 2002 (1) LW 398 in the case of Laljivora vs.
Srividya. Challenging the said findings, the defendants preferred this Civil
Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for Revision Petitioner submitted
that the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are
dragging on the suit proceedings and failed to appreciate Sec.12 of Tamil
Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, which has to be decided as a
preliminary issue. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial
court.
4. On seeing the facts, the suit was filed claiming the relief of
partition and the plaintiffs claiming that the property is a joint family
property and they are in joint possession of the property. Under law, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No. 3874 of 2017
joint possession is presumed and unless they are excluded from such
possession, it can be decided on elaborate evidence and it cannot be decided
in the preliminary issue. Therefore, relying the said proposition, the trial
court has rightly appreciated the fact and dismissed the application, which
needs no interference. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
and the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No. 58 of 2017 is confirmed.
However, liberty is granted to the revision petitioners to raise all their
defence before the trial court during the trial and since the suit is pending
from the year of 2013 without any progress, the trial court is directed to
dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
10.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
rpp
To
Principal Sub-Judge, Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No. 3874 of 2017
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P.No. 3874 of 2017
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
