The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to vacate a decree. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit property was Ryotwari land properly valued, rejecting claims that it was a house site requiring different court fees.
The civil revision case is dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018 &
C.M.P.No.21458 of 2018
Durai Pandian .... Petitioner
Vs.
1.E.Ramachandran
2.E.Mahadevan
3.C.Panneerselvam
4.P.Muthiyal .... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Order and Decreetal Order dated 08.10.2018 in I.A.No.488 of 2018 in O.S.No.49 of 2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam District, dismissing I.A.No.488 of 2018 in deciding the preliminary issue and allow I.A.No.488 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Nagu Sah
For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Subramanian for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 and R4
Page No.1/8
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
O R D E R
This Revision is directed against the Fair and Decreetal order
passed in I.A.No.488 of 2018 in O.S.No.49 of 2011, wherein, the learned
District Munsif, Madurantakam rejected the petition filed under Order IXV
Rule 2 (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. r/w Section 12 of Tamil Nadu
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
the suit property, the Temple also owns an extent of 2.64 acres in S.No.14/1 of Vembanur Village. It is alleged that the first defendant
Page No.2/8
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
colluding with the second defendant got the property by way of registered sale deed dated 28.09.2005. According to the plaintiffs, the second defendant has no right or authority to convey the suit property to the first defendant.
averments made in the plaint. It is his case that the suit property belongs to
an individual and his vendor is having title to convey the property to him.
contending that the suit property was not properly valued and proper Court
fee has not been paid. It is alleged that learned District Munsiff has no peculiar jurisdiction to try the case. In the affidavit, he has stated that a
residential house constructed in the suit property is worth of Rs.10,00,000/-
Page No.3/8
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
property. It is also stated that the written statement was filed long back and when the suit was posted in the list, the present application has been filed with an intention to drag on the case and the learned District Munsif, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present Revision has
been filed.
petitioner that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the petition is factually incorrect. According to him, in the plaint itself it has been stated that the petitioner / first defendant has constructed a house and hence, the observation of the learned trial Judge that whether construction was made prior to the suit or after, at the conclusion of the
trial cannot be countenanced.
the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs argued in support of the impugned order. It is stated that the suit property is an agricultural land having an extent of
1.37 acres and annual kist is Rs.1.71 ps . and proper Court fee has been
paid, according to the relevant provision.
Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
materials available on record.
and the plaintiffs have to pay Court fee for the value of the property. Based on the averments contained in the plaint, the learned Judge has held that the suit property has been described as Ryotwari property, and it is properly valued and proper Court fee has been paid. It is pertinent to note that the
suit was filed in the year 2011 and when the suit is posted in the list, this application has been filed belatedly in 2018. This shows lack of bonafide in
Page No.5/8
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
the application.
in the order impugned in this Civil Revision Case. Accordingly, the Civil
Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
Speaking order / Non Speaking Order
r n s
Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
To
The District Munsif, Madurantakam District.
Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
r n s
C.R.P.(PD)No.3855 of 2018 &
C.M.P.No.21458 of 2018
05.08.2021
Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petition under Order IX Rule 2(2) read with Section 151 CPC suffers from any illegality or infirmity.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Durai Pandian
E.Ramachandran
E.Mahadevan
C.Panneerselvam
P.Muthiyal
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
