Dismissed

N.Udhayakumar v. M.Vijayalakshmi

Madras HC14 Feb 2024CRP(MD)/190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order on court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court held the challenge was delayed, payment was based on the plaint as per law, and directed trial courts to expedite pending suits over five years.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Trial court directed to expedite trial process.

N.Udhayakumar Vs M.Vijayalakshmi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 14/02/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2024 and

¶7

CMP(MD)No.819 of 2024

¶8

1.N.Udhayakumar

¶9

2.N.Muthu Prakash

¶10

3.Pandiammal

¶11

4.R.Prabhu

¶12

5.R.Gowtham : Petitioners/Petitioners/

¶13

18, 19 & 14 to 16 Defendants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.M.Vijayalakshmi : 1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent/ Plaintiff

S.M.Natarajan (died)

S.M.Rajam (died)

P.Mariammal (died)

2.Rajarajeswari

¶20

3.S.Poonkodi

¶21

4.Jeya

¶22

5.Murugesan

¶23

6.Chandra

¶24

7.Indira

¶25

8.S.Sudha

¶26

9.S.Sanmugavalli

¶27

10.Minor S.Jai Sivaraman

¶28

11.Minor S.Jaihariharan : 2 to 11 Respondents/ (Minors 10 & 11 respondents 2 to 11 Respondents/ represented through their 4, 5 to 13 Defendants Mother & Guardian 9^th Respondent

¶29

S.Sanmugavalli)

¶30

Chellamanickam (died)

¶31

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

¶32

1/13

¶33

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶34

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 28/08/2023 made in IA No.2 of 2023 in O.S No1081 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

¶35

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sankar

¶36

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaran for Mr.D.Nallathambi

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

This civil revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside fair and decreetal order, dated 28/08/2023 passed in IA No.2 of 2023 in OS No.1081 of 2012 by the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.

¶39

2. The facts in brief :-

¶40

A suit in OS No.1081 of 2021 was filed by the first

¶41

respondent herein as plaintiff seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of her share and for consequential relief of declaration to declare the various deeds are as null and void. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement. Pending further process, a petition was taken out by the defendants 14 to 16, 18 and 19, who are the petitioners herein in IA No.2 of 2023 to decide the preliminary issue

¶42

of court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶43

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

¶44

2/13

¶45

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶46

3.That was resisted by the respondents. After elaborate consideration, the trial court dismissed the petition.

¶47

4.Against which, this civil revision petition is

¶48

preferred.

¶49

5.Heard both sides.

¶50

6.In the plaint, it has been stated by the first respondent/plaintiff that in respect of the 1^st item, to allot 1/6^th share and 1/3^rd share in the items 2 to 5, she valued the suit, as per section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuations Act, 1955. The Court Fee paid is Rs.750/-. Total share available to her is valued at Rs.8,50,000/-. In respect of declaratory relief, she valued the same as Rs.8,65,000/-. The court fee of Rs.1428.50/- was paid under sections 25(d) of the Act. The total court fee paid by the first respondent is Rs.1,428.50/- in respect of the declaratory relief.

¶51

7.The petitioners herein filed a petition stating

¶52

that total value of the property is more than Rs.1,70,00,000/-, even as per the Government Guideline value at the time of filing of the suit. Now it has been

¶53

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

¶54

3/13

¶55

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶56

valued as Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Without proper value, the suit is filed and if the proper value is made, then only the plaint has to be taken out of the trial court.

¶57

8.The trial court is of the view that the question of court fee must be decided on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and the first respondent deemed to be in joint possession. So, the payment of court fee and valuation cannot be disputed.

¶58

9.Similarly, in respect of the payment of court fee

¶59

under section 25(d) of the Act also, it is valid.

¶60

10.Now in the grounds, it has been stated that the guideline value issued by the Government was annexured along with the petition. But without considering the same, the above said order is passed. But the above said guideline is not produced before this court. So, this court is handicapped with the guidelines issued by the Government. The date of filing the plaint and letter is not known. So, no finding can be recorded by this court.

¶61

11.Normally, the valuation mentioned in the plaint will be taken as correct, unless substantial proof is available to show the contra valuation. More-over, the

¶62

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

¶63

4/13

¶64

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶65

draft issue has also been placed before this court. Wherein, we find no issue with regard to the correctness of the payment of court fee.

¶66

12.Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit

¶67

Valuation Act, reads as follows:-

¶68

Courts (1) In every suit instituted in any Court other than the High Court, the Court

¶69

shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed under section 10 the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subject to review, further review and correction in the manner specified in the succeeding sub-sections.

¶70

statement filed before the first hearing of

¶71

the suit or before evidence is recorded on

¶72

the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, not later, plead

¶73

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

¶74

5/13

¶75

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶76

that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such

¶77

pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the Court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the Court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit.

¶78

(3)A defendant added after issues have

¶79

been framed on the merits of the claim may, in the written statement filed by him, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such

¶80

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

¶81

6/13

¶82

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶83

defendant, on the merits of the claim, and if the Court finds that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall follow the procedure laid down in subsection (2).

¶84

Explanation.--Nothing in this sub-

¶85

section shall apply to a defendant added as a successor or a representative in interest of a defendant who was on record before issues were framed on the merits of the claim and who had an opportunity to file a written statement pleading that the subject-matter of the suit was not properly valued or that the fee paid was not sufficient.

¶86

(4)(a) Whenever a case comes up before a

¶87

Court of Appeal, it shall be lawful for the Court, either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower Court affecting the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the lower Court and determine the proper fee payable thereon.

¶88

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

¶89

7/13

¶90

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶91

Explanation.-- A case shall be deemed to come before a Court of Appeal even if the appeal relates only to a part of the subjectmatter of the suit.

¶92

(b)If the Court of Appeal decides that the fee paid in the lower Court is not sufficient, the Court shall require the party liable to pay the deficit fee within such time as may be fixed by it.

¶93

(c)If the deficit fee is not paid within

¶94

the time fixed and the default is in respect of a relief which has been dismissed by the lower Court and which the appellant seeks in appeal, the appeal shall be dismissed, but if the default is in respect of a relief which has been decreed by the lower Court, the deficit fee shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue.

¶95

(d)If the fee paid in the lower Court is

¶96

in excess, the Court shall direct the refund of the excess to the party who is entitled to it.

¶97

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

¶98

8/13

¶99

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶100

(5)All questions as to value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts arising on the written statement of a defendant shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim.

¶101

Explanation.--In this section, the expression "merits of the claim" refers to matters which arise for determination in the suit, not being matters relating to the frame of the suit, misjoinder of parties and causes of action, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain or try the suit or the fee payable but inclusive of matters arising on pleas of res judicata, limitation and the like.

¶102

13.This provision is mentioned by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent stating that as per section 12(2) of the Act, the earliest opportunity was not exercised by the petitioners. At what stage that petition was filed is not clear on record. But it appears that issues were framed, on 15/12/2017. The petition was filed in 2023, much after the framing of the issues. The

¶103

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

¶104

9/13

¶105

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶106

petitioners ought to have raised objection at the earliest opportunity available to them. The suit was filed in 2012. Almost 12 years lapsed. Still no progress could be made in the trial process.

¶107

14.In para 10 of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2, it has been simply stated that the plaintiff is out of possession. So, the court fee ought to have been paid by valuing the same on the basis of the market value.

¶108

15.To show the market value of the property in 2012,

¶109

they have also produced the guideline value, which is also available in the typed set of papers. But whether the plait should be valued on the market value, since the plaintiff is out of possession, cannot be considered in midway, which requires proper evidence. If the evidence

¶110

is brought on record that the plaintiff is out of possession, the petitioners can be very well directed to pay the court fee in accordance with law. But stalling the further process by way of filing this petition cannot be appreciated.

¶111

16.Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 reads as under:-

¶112

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

¶113

10/13

¶114

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶115

“2.In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the following rates:-

¶116

(i)	A District Munsif's court	Rupees one	hundred.
(ii)	The City Civil Court, Chennai or a Sub-Court or a District Munsif.	Rupees one value of is rupees or less; hundred, rupees thi below rupe rupees sev	hundred, if the plaintiffs share thirty thousand rupees five if it is above rty thousand but es one lakh; and en hundred and
		fifty, if rupees one	the value is lakh and above.
(iii)	The High Court	Rupees one	thousand]

¶117

17.As mentioned above, if there is evidence to show that the plaintiff excluded from the possession, the market value will play the role. But, as mentioned above, it is matter for trial.

¶118

18.More-over, it is also settled proposition of law that payment of court fee is between the court and the plaintiff. Even though, the party can assist the court. On that ground, they cannot make objection. So, I find absolutely no reason to entertain this petition. Considering the oldness of the matter, there shall be a direction to the concerned trial court to follow the

¶119

circular of issued by this Court in R.O.C.No.

¶120

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

¶121

11/13

¶122

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶123

984/2015/RG/B5 dated 25.02.2016 wherein this Court directed the trial Courts to expedite the trial process in the matters pending for more than 5 years.

¶124

19.In the result, this civil revision petition fails and the same dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶125

14/02/2024

¶126

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

¶127

To,

¶128

1.The Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

¶129

2.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶130

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

¶131

12/13

¶132

C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶133

G.ILANGOVAN, J

¶134

¶135

C.R.P(MD)No.190 of 2024

¶136

14/02/2024

¶137

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

¶138

13/13

N.Udhayakumar v. M.Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Udhayakumar v. M.Vijayalakshmi

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

Backiyanathan Vs S.Jeyalakshmi

M.Premalatha Vs The Managing Director

Vijayalakshmi Vs Annathai @ Annathayammal

Nagarani, Vs Krishnakumar

Maheshkannah, Vs C.Prameela

B.Sangeethkumar Vs a.Pongudi