Baskar vs Rajeswari Ammal ... 1St
2024 Latest Caselaw 17548 Mad

Madras High Court

Baskar vs Rajeswari Ammal ... 1St on 4 September, 2024

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                                          C.R.P.(MD)No.927 of 2024




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            Dated : 04.09.2024

                                               CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                        C.R.P.(MD)No.927 of 2024
                                                  and
                                       C.M.P.(MD)No.5055 of 2024

                1.Baskar
                2.Padma                     ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Defendants 12 & 4


                                                  Vs.
                1.Rajeswari Ammal             ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent / Plaintiff

                2.Meenambal

                3.Rathinama

                4.Ponraman

                5.Anjalai

                6.Karuppan

                7.Chellammal

                8.Chellaiyan

                9.Chinnamani               ... Respondents 2 to 12 / Respondents 2 to 12/
                                                      Defendants 1 to 3, 5 to 11 & 13



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/4
                                                                                 C.R.P.(MD)No.927 of 2024




                Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.02.2024 made in I.A.No.2 of
                2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur.


                          For Petitioners      : Mr.K.K.Senthil

                          For Respondents      : Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
                                                    for R1
                                               : No appearance for R2, R5 & R8

                                               ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The defendants 12 & 4 in O.S.No.162 of 2010 on the file of the

Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur are the revision petitioners herein. It is a suit

for partition. Preliminary decree was originally passed. Questioning the same,

the revision petitioners herein filed A.S.No.86 of 2018 before the Principal

District Judge, Thanjavur. Before the Court, the revision petitioners adduced

additional evidence to show that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit

property and that valuation should be done under Section 37(1) of the Tamil

Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The first appellate Court vide

Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 allowed the appeal and set aside the

Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remitted the matter to the

trial Court for fresh consideration. After the matter was remanded, the present https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

IA.No.2 of 2024 was filed by the revision petitioners for appointing an

advocate commissioner to assess the market value of the property. IA was

dismissed. Questioning the same, this Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

3. The purpose of remand was to find out if the plaintiffs are in

possession / joint possession of the suit property which has a serious bearing on

the valuation of the payment of court fees. If the trial court comes to the

conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession / joint possession of the suit

property, then, the court fees has to be paid on the market value of the property

under Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

Therefore, assessment of the market value becomes relevant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners draws my

attention to Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C which states that an advocate

commissioner can be appointed for assessing the market value of any property.

The court below has taken the view that the advocate commissioner cannot

independently assess the market value. This reason given by the court below

runs counter to the express language of Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. As

already noted, the market value of the property would become a relevant factor

if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of

the suit property.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The civil

revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

                                                                               04.09.2024
                NCC               : Yes / No
                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes / No
                rmi


                To:

                The Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur.









                                                                                         04.09.2024


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis