Dismissed

Anandha Krishnan v. Kanagaraj

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRP(MD)/1985/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to set aside the lower court's order dismissing a petition for rejection of plaint on grounds of under-valuation. The Revision Court held the petitioner failed to prove the suit property was a housing site and affirmed the lower court's conclusi

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs awarded. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Anandha Krishnan Vs Kanagaraj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No. 1985 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA C.R.P(PD)(MD) No. 1985 of 2014

¶5

and M..P(MD) No.1 of 2014

¶6

Anandha Krishnan ...Petitioner/Petitioner/1^st Defendant Vs.

¶7

Kanagaraj ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶8

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No. 178 of 2013 in O.S.No. 6 of 2013 dated 18.07.2014 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ottanchathiram

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold singh

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This revision has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated made in I.A.No.178 of 2013 in O.S.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ottanchathiram dismissing the petition filed for rejection of the plaint.

¶13

The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of sale agreement dated 11.09.2012 registered as Document No.1877 of 2012 on the file of the fourth defendant. The petitioner/ first defendant had filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the suit was under valued. The Trial Court after hearing both sides had dismissed the petition against which the revision has been filed..

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit schedule property is a housing site and that the value of the property was Rs.4,20,920/- in the document filed by the plaintiff as document no.3 which is release deed dated 21.09.2012. The value of the property has been shown as Rs.4,20,920/- whereas the court fee has been calculated as if the lands are agricultural land and on the basis of the revenue value and kist they have paid the lesser value, thereby the petitioner has filed a petition seeking to reject the plaint. He would further submit that Trial Court without considering facts had wrongly held that the petitioner has not filed any proper document to show that the land was housing site and dismissed the petition, against which the petition has been filed.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

C.R.P(MD)No. 1985 of 2014

¶18

He would further submit that document no.3 annexed to the plaint is in respect of an extent of 6.001 of land, however the Trial Court without properly appreciating the same had dismissed the petition. He would also submit that if the suit schedule property is considered as a housing site the value will go beyond one lakh and the court will not have jurisdiction to try the case, whereas the Trial Court had erroneously dismissed the same.

¶19

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner/defendant except relying upon document no.3 annexed with plaint had not relied on any other document and the Trial court rightly taking into consideration document No. 3 and document No. 5 annexed to the plaint, held that the property is Ryotwari punja land and that the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had rightly valued the suit and paid the correct Court fee. He would also submit that the Trial Court has carefully persued the documents and found that in the description of the property the survey number is shown as 161/3B and new no.161/3B.1 and that the lands are classified as punja lands, and that based on the extent, the property cannot be treated as a housing site. He would further submit that on the date of institution of the suit, they were only punja lands and the Trial Court has rightly held that the stamp fee has been calculated as per section 7(2) (a) r/w. 25(D) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and suit valuation Acts and that the suit has been properly valued.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and persued the materials available on records.

¶21

This Court fees that it is apposite to refer to the relevant portion of the order passed by the Court below, which reads as under:

¶22

" jhth nrhj;jpd; kjpg;ghdJ 4>20>920 vd vjph;kDjhuh; /thjp jhf;fy; nra;Js;s 21.09.2012 Njjpa ghfg;ghj;jpa tpLjiyg; gj;jpuj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ mt;thW kjpg;gpLk; NfhJ ,e;e Pjpkd;wj;jpw;F ,e;j tof;fpy; mjpfhu tuk;G ,y;iy chpa Kiwapy; jhth kjpg;gpl;L e Pjpkd;wf; fl;lzk; nrYj;jhjjhy; tof;if epuhfhpf;f Ntz;Lnkd;W thjk; nra;ag;gl;lJ.

¶23

jw;NghJ jhth nrhj;Jf;fs; t Pl ;L kid epyq;fsh? my;yJ tptrha

¶24

epyq;fsh? vd;gJ Fwpj;J ghh;f;Fk; NghJ kDjhuh; /1k; gpujpthjp jhth nrhj;J t Pl ;lb kid epyq;fs; vd;W nrhy;Ytjw;F Mjtuhf Mtzk; vJTk; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy. jw;NghJ ,e;j tof;fpy; cs;s Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy; jhth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

C.R.P(MD)No. 1985 of 2014

¶27

nrhj;jhdJ t Pl ;l kid epyq;fsh? my;yJ tptrha epyq;fsh vd;gJ Fwpj;J ghh;f;Fk; NghJ vjph;kDjhuh; /thjp jug;gpy; gpuhJld; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s 20.07.1987 Njjpa ghpth;j;jid Mtzk;. 20.06.96 k; Njjpa nghJ mjpfhu Mtzk; 25.09.209 k; Njjpa nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzk; kw;Wk; 21.09.12 Njjpa ghfg;gj;jpa

¶28

tpLjiy Mtzk; Mfpatw;wpd; nrhj;J tpgug;gFjpapy; rh;Nt vz;.61/3gp Gjpa rh;Nt vz;. 1613gp.1 MdJ GQ;ir n`f;Nlh; vd Fwpg;gpl;L vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;fz;l filrp Mtzj;jpy; kl;Lk; ehd;F gf;f vy;iyf;Fs; tp]; ;j Pudk;6.001 rJub vd rJumb fzf;fpy; fz;L vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; t Pl ;L kid fhypaplk; vd ve;j ,lj;jpYk; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy.

¶29

,e;j kDjhuh; gpujpthjp kw;Wk; mry; tof;fpy; 3k; gpujpthjpAk; 01.09.12 y; jhthr; nrhj;ijg; nghWj;J nra;J nfhz;l fpiua cld;gbf;if Mtzj;jpd; nrhj;J tptug;gFjpapy; GQ;ir n`f;Nlh; vd fz;L vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ. me;j gj;jpuj;jpYk; tp];j Puzk; 6.001 rJu mb vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. jtpu kid fhypaplk; my;yJ t Pl ;lb fhypaplk; vd fz;L vOjg;gltpy;iy. 21.09.12 Njjpa ghfg; ghj;jpa tpLjiy Mtzj;Jld; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;s jhthr; nrhj;jpw;fhd

¶30

gl;lhtpy; rh;Nt vz;. 161/3gp.1 MdJ GQ;ir n`f;Nlh; tp];j Puzk; 0.16.10 j Ph ;it &.0 ig.44 vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;fz;l Mtzq;fs; %yk; jhthr; nrhj;jhdJ tptrha GQ;ir epyk; vd;W cs;sjhy; jhthr; nrhj;jhdJ e Pjpkd;wj;jpd; ifapUg;gpy; cs;s Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy; tptrha epyk; vd;W KbT nra;ag;gLfpwJ.

¶31

jhthr; nrhj;jhdJ tpl;lb kid epyk; vd;gijf; fhl;l kDjhuh; /1k; gpujpthjp rhl;rpak; vijAk; Kd;dpWj;jtpy;iy. ,r;#o;epiyapy; jkpo;ehL e Pjpkd;w fl;lzk; kw;Wk; tof;F kj Pg ;gpl;L rl;lk; gphpT 7(2) (V) c/, gphpT 25(gp) f Po ; tpsk;Gif ghpfhuj;jpw;F rhpahd tpjj;jpy; kjpg;gplg;gl;L e Pjpkd;w fl;lzk; nrYj;jpAs;sjhfNt ,e;e Pjpkd;wk; KbT nra;fpwJ. kDjhuhpf kDtpw;F Kfhe;jpuk; vJTk; ,y;iy.

¶32

A perusal of the above observation makes it clear that the revision petitioner/defendant has failed to prove that the suit property is a house site whereas the Court below on appreciation of the documents produced along with the plaint had come to the conclusion that the suit property is an agricultural land and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ finding no merit, the petition filed by the revision petitioner,

¶33

¶34

C.R.P(MD)No. 1985 of 2014

¶35

dismissed the petition. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court, hence the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar (AD II)

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

/ /2021

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

aav

¶43

Note In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, : a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶44

¶45

The District Munsif Court, Ottanchathiram.

¶46

+1 CC to M/s.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-31469[F] dated 07/10/2021 )

¶47

C.R.P(PD)(MD) No. 1985 of 2014

¶48

and M..P(MD) No.1 of 2014 06.10.2021

¶49

MGJ/PM(11.11.2021) 4P 3C

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶51

Anandha Krishnan v. Kanagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandha Krishnan v. Kanagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Jasmin Vs B.Pradeepraja

M.Mithra Vs S.Santhosh

M.Muthuramalingam Vs R.K.Venkudusamy

K.Manimegalai Vs P.Vinothkumar

M.K.Samsudheen Vs Meena

K.S.Chandran, S/O.Sekki Servai Vs the Regional Deputy Registrar