Disposed

S.C.Saminathan, v. S. Arulraj

Madras HC7 Jan 2025CRP(MD)/2226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partition suit was challenged for undervaluation under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act; since plaintiffs amended the plaint to aver joint possession, the revision petition was disposed of with liberty to press court-fee objections before the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to raise court-fee objections before the trial Court; CRP disposed of, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.C.Saminathan, Vs S. Arulraj — Partition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRP(MD).No.2226 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.2226 of 2022 and CMP(MD).No.10431 of 2022

¶7

S.C.Saminathan : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.S.Arulraj 2.R.S.Gobinath : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.03.2022 in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.27 of 2021 on the file of the District Judge, Karur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K. Prabhakar For respondents : Mr. K. Suresh

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.03.2022 made in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.27

¶14

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

CRP(MD).No.2226 of 2022

¶16

of 2021 on the file of the District Judge, Karur.

¶17

According to the facts of the case, the revision petitioner is a defendant. The respondents as plaintiffs have filed the above suit in O.S.No.27 of 2021 on the file of the District Court, Karur seeking for partition. The plaintiffs have valued the suit property under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act stating that the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.6 of 2021 to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the property and also not stated the same in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit property under Section 37(1) of the Court Fees Act. However, the the trial Court erroneously dismissed the said application. Against which, the present revision is preferred.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs have filed an application to amend the plaint in which paragraph No.9, the plaintiffs have stated that both the plaintiffs and the defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this Civil

¶19

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRP(MD).No.2226 of 2022

¶21

Revision Petition. However, he seeks liberty to raise the objections before the trial Court with regard to payment of Court fee as preliminary issue.

¶22

In view of the said submission, liberty is granted to the petitioner

¶23

to raise the objections raised in this Civil Revision Petition before the trial Court.

¶24

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

07.01.2025

¶27

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No trp To

¶28

The District Judge, Karur.

¶29

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRP(MD).No.2226 of 2022

¶31

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,

¶32

trp

¶33

C.R.P(MD)No.2226 of 2022 and CMP(MD).No.10431 of 2022

¶34

07.01.2025

¶35

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.C.Saminathan, v. S. Arulraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.C.Saminathan, v. S. Arulraj

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

Anoob J.Singh Vs The Authorised Officer

Rajeshwari, Vs Karunanithi @ Veerabathiran

D. Anthony Selvaraj Vs K. Roselin Nalini

Ibrahim ali Vs Abdulla

R.K.Match Company (P) Ltd., Vs Shri Match

M.K.Alamgeer Vs Mohammed Kani