Park Trust Vs K.Manoharan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Park Trust Vs K.Manoharan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with 'No costs'; consequently the connected C.M.P.Nos.17523 and 18435 of 2024 are closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioners'/plaintiffs' applications (I.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2021) to reopen evidence and recall PW.4 for further examination touching upon the valuation appraisal report of the suit property, i.e., to prove the valuation fixed by the Bank Officials in addition to the Panel Valuer's valuation report (Ex.A47).

Court's answer

Steps to mark the valuation report prepared by the Bank Officials ought to have been taken while PW.4 was on the witness box; PW.4 had already clearly deposed about the valuation (Fair Market Value Rs.9,85,50,000/- and Forced Sale Value Rs.6,89,85,000/-) in his evidence.

Ratio / Principle

In view of PW.4's evidence mentioning the value of the property, and since the market value of the property can be proved by the petitioners on other modes also, the applications to reopen and recall PW.4 after closure of their evidence do not appear to be absolutely necessary.

Key takeaways

This Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in I.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2021, dated 19.07.2024.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (S. Sounthar, J.), 07.11.2025 — Civil Revision Petitions Nos.3277 & 3410 of 2024 under Article 227, Constitution of India, by Park Trust and other plaintiffs in O.S.No.45 of 2021 (Principal District Judge, Tiruppur), challenging dismissal of their applications I.A.Nos.17 & 18 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 seeking to reopen evidence and recall PW.4 (who had produced the Panel Valuer's valuation report, Ex.A47) so as to additionally prove the valuation fixed by the Officials of Union Bank of India, Tiruppur Branch, the suit having been filed to declare the Sale Deed dated 28.12.2017 null and void on the ground of undervaluation. HELD: (i) steps to mark the Bank Officials' valuation report should have been taken while PW.4 was on the witness box; PW.4 had already deposed that the Fair Market Value of the property was Rs.9,85,50,000/- and the Forced Sale Value was Rs.6,89,85,000/-; (ii) the market value can be proved by the petitioners on other modes also, hence recall/reopening after closure of their evidence was not absolutely necessary; (iii) no error or illegality in the impugned orders. Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with no costs; connected C.M.P.Nos.17523 & 18435 of 2024 closed. No precedent cases cited; no separate or dissenting opinions.

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.17523 and 18435 of 2024

1.Park Trust A Public Charitable Trust, Regd. Under the Indian Trusts Act Rep. by its Managing Trustee P.V.Ravi

2.Dr.P.V.Ravi

Managing Trustee

3.Mr.T.R.Karthik

Trustee, Park Trust Having registered office at Old No.21, New No.36, K.P.N.Colony, 1^st Street, Tirupur – 641 601

... Petitioners (in both CRPs)

vs.

1.K.Manoharan

2.R.Anusha ... Respondents (in both CRPs)

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions ar e filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records of the case in I.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur and set aside the impugned proceedings and order dated 19.07.2024.

1/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

For Petitioners	: Mr.S.Anil Sandeep (in both CRPs)
For R1	: Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Advocate for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates (in both CRPs)

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking to reopen and to recall of PW.4 for further examination touching upon the valuation appraisal report of the suit property and to reopen the suit in I.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2021, dated 19.07.2024.

2. The petitioners filed a suit seeking a declaration that Sale Deed dated 28.12.2017 executed by the 2 nd plaintiff, 3 rd plaintiff and 2 nd defendant in favour of 1 st defendant was null and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1 st defendant from encumbering the property. One of the ground of attack of the plaintiffs was that the valuation mentioned in the Sale Deed did not represent the correct value of the property. In order to lead evidence with regard to the actual value of the

2/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

property covered by the Sale Deed, the plaintiffs already examined PW.4 and marked valuation report as Ex.A47.

3. Now, the present applications have been filed seeking to reopen and to recall of PW.4 for giving further evidence with regard to the valuation made by the Officials of Bank. The said applications were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit property was mortgaged with Union Bank of India, Tiruppur Branch and the subject property was valued by the penal valuer of the Bank and thereafter, it was valued by the Bank Officials, based on that the value of the property was fixed and the same was accepted as security. The PW.4 only produced valuation report of the Panel Valuer and the valuation made by the Bank Officials has not been produced by him. In order to produce the valuation fixed by the Bank Officials, PW.4 may be recalled and an opportunity may be given tot he plaintiff.

5. A perusal of evidence of PW.4 would indicate during the course of

3/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

examination, he produced the valuation report made by the Panel Valuer and the same was already marked. He also deposed that based on the valuation adopted by the Bank, the value of the property would be mentioned in the proposal form and the same has not been produced before the Court.

6. In view of the said statement made by the witness, the Court put a question to the witness and the witness deposed that as per the valuation report, the Fair Market Value of the property was Rs.9,85,50,000/- and the Forced Sale Value was shown as Rs.6,89,85,000/-. The relevant portion of the evidence of PW.4 reads as follows:-

“ t';fp ,izg;gpw;F gpd;g[ Vw;gl;oUe;jhYk; xU kjpg;gPl;L mwpf;if kl;Lnk bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mwpf;if tH';fpa[s;s RFkhu ; v';fs; t';fpapd; Panel Valuer. mjw;F gpwF v';fs ; t';fpapy; cs;s fkpl;o mg;giury; mwpf;if bgWthu;fs;/ kjpg;gPL mwpf;if bgWk;nghnj brhj;jpd; cupik Fwpj;J Title Opinion- k; th';FtJ tHf;fk;/ nkw;fz;l 2 Mtz';fis bgw;w gpd;du; t';fpapy; ,Ue;J Proposal bgWnthk; vd;why ; rupjhd;/ me;j Proposal y; brhj;jpd; kjpg;g[ Fwpj;J eh';fs ; Fwpg;gpLtJ tHf;fk; vd;why; rupjhd;/ eh';fs; mDg;gpa Proposal ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M$u; bra;atpy;iy/

4/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

ejpkdP

ejpkdP w nfs; tp;

Apart from the valuation report we would be not fixing the valuation independently. In the proposal submitted we would be mention the value of the property based on the valuation report. Kjy tprhuiz bjhlu; r; rp;

3. The assessment of the value of the property is done only by our panel valuer and not by our bank. After receiving the summons i have gone through the property related documents. As per the valuation report is fair market value of the property is Rs.9,85,50,000/- and the forced sale value is shown as Rs.6,89,85,000/-.”

7. Therefore, it is clear that PW.4 in his evidence clearly mentioned

about the Fair Market Value of the property and Fored Sale Value of the property. If the petitioners wanted to mark the valuation report prepared by the Bank Officials, he should have taken steps, when PW.4 was on box. In any event, PW.4 clearly deposed about the valuation in his evidence. Further, the market value of the property can be proved by the petitioners on other modes also.

8. In such circumstances, the applications filed by the petitioners to reopen and to recall of PW.4 after closure of their evidence do not appear to be absolutely necessary in the light of his evidence extracted above, wherein

5/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

he mentioned about the value of the property. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in I.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2021, dated 19.07.2024.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.

07.11.2025

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm

6/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

To

The Principal District Court, Tiruppur.

7/8

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

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm

C.R.P.Nos.3277 and 3410 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.17523 and 18435 of 2024

07.11.2025

8/8

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