This High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dismissing a petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that since the suit was for recovery of possession without mesne profits claims, separate valuation of trees for court fee purposes was unnecessary, finding no illegality in the lower court's dismissal.
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.No.1382 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.9015 of 2019
... Petitioners
Vs.
Arul Prakasam Joseph ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.No.80 of 2019 in O.S.No.142 of 2013 dated 07.03.2019 on the file fo the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil and allow the said I.A., by allowing this CRP.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Murughan
Page 1 of 6
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the judgment and decree order dated 07.03.2019, passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, in I.A.No.80 of 2019 in O.S.No.142 of 2013, thereby dismissing the petition seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of the Village Administrative Officer and value the trees situated in the suit property.
Page 2 of 6
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019
the relief of declaration alone allowed and the suit filed by the petitioners was also allowed in respect of injunction alone for the very same property. Therefore, the respondent filed the present suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction on the strength of decree of declaration.
Page 3 of 6
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019
is that whether the trees planted in the agricultural land can be valued for
Court fee or not?
Page 4 of 6
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019
value with the help of the Village Administrative Officer. The petitioners already suffered with the decree of declaration in respect of the suit property
in favour of the respondent herein, all along they are enjoying the suit property. Even then, the respondent filed suit for recovery of possession alone and did not ask for any means profit. Therefore, the respondent need not to value the trees which were planted by the petitioners herein to pay the Court fees. Hence the Court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise the issue in respect of Court fee in other aspects as preliminary issue before the Court below.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16.12.2022
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
Page 5 of 6
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
C.R.P.No.1382 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.9015 of 2019
16.12.2022
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether trees planted in agricultural land can be separately valued for calculation of court fees in a suit.
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to value the trees.
Whether the respondent was required to value trees planted by petitioners to pay court fees for a suit for recovery of possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kullappa Goundan Vs. Abdul Rahim SahibReferred¶30
39 Ind Cas 254
Pushparaj
Sengolmarry
Arul Prakasam Joseph
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
