High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN
Rajalakshmi & Others
Versus
Dwarakanath & Others.
O.S.A.Nos.24 of 2007
Decided On :26-02-2010
Partition - Property Valuation - Advocate Commissioner's Report - Property Value Fixation
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenges a judgment granting a preliminary decree in a partition suit. The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to value the properties and fix their values. The Court then determined the values of the properties and calculated the shares of the parties based on the preliminary decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court fixed the values of the properties and calculated the shares of the parties according to the preliminary decree. The Court also ordered the appellants to make payments to the other parties based on the property values.
Issues: Valuation of properties, calculation of shares, and payment of ovelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner to determine the values of the properties and calculate the shares of the parties. The Court also considered the rights declared in the preliminary decree to determine the entitlements of the parties.
Final Decision: The Court passed a final decree retaining the properties in the possession of the respective parties, ordering the appellants to make payments to the other parties, and allowing the parties to apply for necessary entries in the revenue records.
(M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This appeal challenges a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.No.1009 of 1993 granting a preliminary decree.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition, and on trial, a preliminary decree came to be passed by the learned Single Judge declaring the rights of the parties. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 5 to 8 have brought forth this appeal.
3. On the earlier occasion, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the parties brought to the notice of the Court that the properties need not be sold, and they want to enjoy the same. Hence, with the consent of the parties, this Court appointed a retired District Judge as Advocate Commissioner to value the property and file a report.
4. Now, the Advocate Commissioner has valued the property and filed his report before the Court. The parties were given opportunity to file their objections. They have filed so. This Court perused the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also the objections made by them.
5. Now, at this juncture, the value of the property has got to be fixed. After hearing the submissions made on either side, looking into the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the objections and also hearing the parties, the properties are valued properly and fixed by this Court as follows.
6. Admittedly, A Schedule property is situated at Old Door No.126, New Door No.132, Present No.40, Audiappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 079.This property is in the possession of the appellants. Its plinth area is 4800 sq. ft., and the extent of the site as per the document is 2980 sq. ft. The Advocate Commissioner has fixed the value at Rs.2,36,08,000/- after valuing the building at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and the site at Rs.7600/- per sq. ft. Now, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the property is occupied by three tenants, and they have got to be vacated for which they have to incur expenditure, and it has got to be considered by the Court. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the site value can be taken as Rs.7400/-per sq. ft., and hence the value of A Schedule property could be fixed at Rs.2,33,00,000/-.
7. As regards B Schedule property, it is situate at Old No.2/187, New No.74, Present No.15, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 001.The respondents 1 and 2 herein are in possession of this property. The total plinth area is 2400 sq. ft., and the extent of the site as per patta is 1435 sq. ft. The Commissioner has fixed the value of this property at Rs.75,25,000/- taking the value of the building as Rs.325/- per sq. ft. and the value of the site as Rs.4700/- per sq. ft. This Court is of the view that since it is situate in the prime locality, it could be fixed at Rs.78,00,000/-after taking the value of the site as Rs.4900/- per sq. ft.
8. Insofar as "C" Schedule property which is situate at Old door No.34, New door No.76, Present No.156, Gengu Reddy Road, Chennai 600 008, it is in the possession of the respondents 3 to 5 herein. As per the plaint schedule, the total plinth area is 2600 sq. ft., and the extent of the site is 1088 sq. ft. The additional extent in respect of the building is 450 sq. ft. and that of site is 177 sq. ft. The Commissioner has fixed the value at Rs.91,14,000/- after taking into consideration the value of the building as Rs.375/-per sq. ft. and the value of the site as Rs.6300/-per sq. ft. This Court is of the view that the value of the site could be taken as Rs.3900/-per sq. ft. If this is applied, the value of this property could be fixed at Rs.60,00,000/-.
9. Accordingly, the following value is fixed:
(i) A Schedule property - Rs.2,33,00,000/- (Rupees two crores thirty three lakhs only);
(ii) B Schedule property - Rs.78,00,000/- (Rupees seventy eight lakhs only); and
(iii) C Schedule property - Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs only).
10. Now, the ovelty has got to
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.