2017 Supreme(Mad) 1559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
S.N. Balapattabi - Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs. Balanagalakshmi - Respondent
C.R.P. PD No. 3686 of 2016 and C.M.P. No. 18699 of 2016
Decided On : 21-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Raghavachari, M/s. M. Narayanasamy
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Parthasarathy, M/s. Kumar & Baskar
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act - Section 37 (1) – CPC - Order VII Rule 11 (b) – Civil Suit – Rejection of plaint - Suit for partition into two shares and allot one share to respondent and for mense profits - Suit is barred by limitation - Petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in O.S. before Fast Track Court - Respondent filed suit in O.S. for partition into two shares and allot one share to respondent and for mense profits - Petitioner filed I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint - According to petitioner, title of respondent is denied and she ought to have filed suit for declaration - Suit is barred by limitation as respondent is not in possession of suit property, plaint does not discloses any cause of action, respondent suppressed material facts and has not impleaded necessary parties as two daughters of petitioner are also co-parceners, non-production of documents based on cause of action and respondent has not properly valued Item of suit property and has not paid proper court fee - According to petitioner, respondent is claiming partition of ancestral properties, joint family properties as well as separate properties - Held, Court has to fix date before which plaint has to be amended in accordance with law with courts decision and deficit court fee has to be paid - If plaintiff fails to amend and pay deficit court fee, plaint has to be rejected - To ascertain correct market value of property, court has power under Section 19 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to appoint a Commissioner in this regard - Learned Judge failed to consider these provisions and failed to exercise his powers conferred on him - Learned Judge committed an irregularity in dismissing application on ground that suit is eight years old and petitioner has not made any case for rejection of plaint - Petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent had decided about consideration for rejection of plaint, ascertaining market value of property and payment of additional court fee, if any - Judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner are squarely applicable to facts of present case - Judge is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as per Section 19 of Act and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to ascertain correct market value of properties mentioned in Item and if market value is more than what is mentioned in plaint and respondent has not paid proper court fee, respondent may be directed to pay deficit court fee within time limit fixed by Court and pass consequential order - Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair order and decreetal order dated 26.09.2016 in I.A.No.250 of 2015 in O.S.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Gobichettipalayam.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2007 before the Fast Track Court No.2, Gobichettipalayam. The respondent filed suit in O.S.No.2 of 2007 for partition into two shares and allot one share to the respondent and for mense profits. The petitioner filed I.A.No.250 of 2015 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. According to the petitioner, the title of the respondent is denied and she ought to have filed suit for declaration. The suit is barred by limitation as respondent is not in possession of the suit property, plaint does not discloses any cause of action, the respondent suppressed the material facts and has not impleaded necessary parties as the two daughters of the petitioner are also co-parceners, non-production of documents based on the cause of action and the respondent has not properly valued Item Nos.8 & 9 of the suit property and has not paid proper court fee.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent is claiming partition of ancestral properties, joint family properties as well as separate properties. In view of these facts, three separate nature of properties, the respondent has to value the properties at the market value and pay the court fee on the said value as per Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and not as per Section 37 (2) of the Act. The respondent is not in joint possession of all the properties and therefore she has to pay the court fee at Ad valorem on the market value of the suit properties.
4. The respondent filed counter affidavit, additional counter affidavit and denied various allegations made by the petitioner. According to the respondent, the suit was initially filed in Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam and was taken on file as O.S.No.9 of 2004 and pending suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 125 of 2005 on the ground that Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and pass orders on the suit. After enquiry, it was held that Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam has no pecuniary jurisdiction and after valuing the properties, the suit was represented before District Court, Erode and numbered as O.S. No. 177 of 2006. The said suit was transferred to the III Additional District Court No. 3, Gobichettipalayam and re-numbered as O.S.No.2 of 2007.
5. According to the respondent, she is claiming partition as per the provision of Hindu Succession Act as amended and she is liable to pay court fee only under Section 37 (2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and Section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. She also further stated that the suit is not undervalued, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC. If court comes to the conclusion that the suit is undervalued, the respondent must be given time to pay the court fee and only when she fails to pay the deficit court fee, plaint can be rejected. Already Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam has enquired into the value of the property and returned the plaint on the ground that the property is undervalued. The respondent, after return of the said plaint, valued the properties at the market rate and has represented the plaint before the District Court, Erode and it has been numbered as O.S.No.177 of 2006 and subsequently it was transferred to Fast Track Court, Gobichettipalayam and re-numbered as O.S.No.2 of 2007. In view of the said fact, the petitioner has no right to raise the said issue once again.
6. Before the learned Judge, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondent did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. The learned Judge, considering all the materials on record