Madras High Court
K.Arockiyadass vs K.Bharathidasan on 4 December, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1922 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD)No.1922 of 2019
1.K.Arockiyadass
2.G.Emelda ... Petitioners / Plaintiffs
.Vs.
1.K.Bharathidasan
2.B.Vincent
3.N.Ramesh
4.N.Ganesan
5.N.Sambasivam ... Respondents / Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, set aside the order dated 04.01.2017 passed in
O.S.No.137 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif and
Judicial Magistrate Court, Lalgudi, Trichirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian
For Respondents : Mr.J.Lenin Kumar for R1
: No appearance for R2 to R5
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1922 of 2019
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed at the instance of the plaintiffs.
The suit has been filed for the relief of declaration and for consequential
relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1, 3, 4 & 5 to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit
property.
2. The trial Court suo-motu issued a Check Slip in D.No.1072
dated 29.09.2016 calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause or give
explanation as to why the relief ought not to be valued under Section 25
(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs also gave their
explanations/objections, in pursuance of which, the trial Court has held
that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be styled as a
consequential relief and the said relief has to be valued independently
and appropriate Court fee to be paid in accordance with law. Aggrieved
by the said order, the plaintiffs/petitioners have preferred the present
revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Admittedly, the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is for
declaration of title. However, despite the comprehensive prayer for
declaration of title, a specific decree is sought for against some of the
defendants namely, the defendants 1, 3, 4 & 5 in the nature of a
mandatory injunction to direct these defendants to execute a sale deed in
favour of the plaintiffs, with regard to the suit property.
5. The trial Court has rightly applied the ratio of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgment in Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajendar Prasad and
Others reported in AIR 1973 SC 2384 and held that the valuation of the
relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1, 3, 4 & 5 to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is not proper and for
consequential relief of mandatory injunction, appropriate Court fee be
paid by the plaintiffs. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the trial
Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture, would
state that they would pay the appropriate Court fee subject to reason time
granted by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall value the relief of mandatory
injunction and pay the appropriate Court fee within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court, thereafter,
is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Considering
that the suit is of the year 2011, this Court directs the trial Court to take
up the trial and decide the suit as expediously as possible, preferrably on
or before 30.04.2024, in accordance with law.
8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
04.12.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B.BALAJI,J.
dss
To
1. The Principal District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court,
Lalgudi, Trichirappalli.
2. .The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
04.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
