Madras High Court
A.Shabbir vs Zamruth Begum on 13 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
O.S.A. No.355 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
O.S.A. No.355 of 2025
and
C.M.P. No.28257 of 2025
1.A.Shabbir
2.S.Hamida
3.S.Hussain
4.S.Saifuddin ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Zamruth Begum
2.M.M.Ali Hussain Kirmani
3.M.Ali Abbas Kirmani @ Jawed Hussain
4.Md.Ali Kirmani @ Mohamed Ali
5.Masthan
6.Subaan
7.Mumtaz Begum
8.Fathima Begum
9.Khaleel
10.Athali
11.Hussaini Begum
12.KG.A.Kirmani @ Jani
13.Rubbab
14.Mohammed Hadi
15.Nazreen
16.Mumtaz Begum
17.Fazilath Begum
18.Mirza Ali Naquie Kirmani
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
O.S.A. No.355 of 2025
19.Tamil Nadu Waqf Board
rep. By its Secretary,
No.3, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
20.K.Raza Ali
21.Abdur Rahman
22.K.Palaniappan
23.Anshar Ali
24.The Sub Registrar,
First Line Beach,
Chennai – 600 001.
25.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
26.Tahsildhar,
Fort Tondiarpet Taluk,
Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side
rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 16.09.2025
passed in A.No.4539 of 2025 in C.S. No.820 of 2008.
For Appellants : Mr.K.S.V.Prasad
For Respondents : Ms.Aswini Devi K
Additional Government Pleader
for R24 to R26
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
O.S.A. No.355 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Original Side Appeal has been instituted to assail order dated
16.09.2025 passed in A.No.4539 of 2025 in C.S. No.820 of 2008.
2. Mr.K.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants argued entertainability of the present appeal and in what way
appellants are aggrieved from and out of the order sought to be assailed.
3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that appointment of
Valuer per se by the trial Court is erroneous. However, in paragraph No.3 of
the order impugned dated 16.09.2025, trial Court made a finding that earlier
order dated 12.08.2025 says that the guideline value of the property is
Rs.2,93,33,600/-. But Ex.R3 valuation report shows that the value has been
fixed at Rs.2,93,99,026/-. The Commissioner has already been directed to
obtain value from Valuer and he has engaged the Valuer but his report has not
yet been received and filed before the Court. Since the Court thought fit that
the report from the neutral Valuer is to be obtained, time was extended for a
period of two weeks to file valuation report. The matter was directed to be
listed after two weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
4. Whether any of the rights vested on the appellants have been
infringed or violated is the only point to be considered. That apart, for the
purpose of entertaining the appeal, whether the impugned order can be
construed as 'judgment' or 'order' under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
5. Any decision which affects a valuable right is a judgment. In the
case of Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D.Kania and Anr reported in
AIR 1981 SC 1786, Apex Court has held as under:
'...... It is for the appellate Bench to see whether the
impugned order is a judgment because it decides matters
of moment or affects valuable rights of the parties and
works serious injustice to the party concerned.
The test is whether there has been determination of
any right or liability or whether it affects the merits of the
controversy in the suit itself or if the order affects vital and
valuable rights of the parties.'
6. In the present case, trial Court extended time for submission of
valuation report which would not cause any prejudice nor result in infringement
of the rights of the appellants to establish or defend their case.
7. Thus the appellants have not established any semblance of legal
rights for entertaining the Original Side Appeal. However, appellants are at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
liberty to raise all their objections before the trial Court in the manner known to
law.
8. With the above observation, this Original Side Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
13.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.3, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Sub Registrar,
First Line Beach, Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.
4.Tahsildhar,
Fort Tondiarpet Taluk,
Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.
5. The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
mmi
13.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
