Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Kiran Devi - Appellant
Versus
Philomena & Another - Respondent
CRP (PD)Nos. 3240 & 3241 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 26-06-2019
For the Petitioner:Sandeep S. Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Karunakaran, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Section 15,16,17 and 16(b) - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit valuation Act – Section 25(b) - Petitioner in both Civil Revision Petitions is first defendant in suit O.S. No.7009 filed by first respondent / plaintiff - Suit was filed for relief against petitioner - For declaration that sale deed and registered as document 42/2006 is null and void and not binding on plaintiff - A written statement was filed by petitioner in suit, wherein petitioner has categorically pleaded that since, suit schedule property is outside jurisdiction of Corporation of City Civil Court, does not have territorial jurisdiction as it is against provisions of sections 15, 16 and 17 of Code of Civil Procedure - Further, it has been pleaded that first respondent / plaintiff has deliberately undervalued suit and has not paid proper court fee. I.A. No.318 in O.S. No.7009 was also filed by petitioner / first defendant under Section 27(D) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit valuation Act seeking for a direction to determine correct court fee payable for prayer sought in plaint filed in O.S. No.7009 – Held, In the result, impugned common order passed by Trial Court in I.A. Nos.317 are hereby set aside and Trial Court is directed to return suit papers pertaining to the suit O.S.No.7009 to petitioner/first respondent, within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable her to re-present suit before appropriate court having jurisdiction - On such representation of suit papers before appropriate Court by first respondent / plaintiff, appropriate court shall decide dispute in accordance with law - Insofar as court fee issue is concerned, appropriate court having jurisdiction shall hear application filed by petitioner in I.A. No.318 as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law - It is made clear that this Court is not deciding suit on merits, but it is deciding suit only on its maintainability, as court below lacks territorial jurisdiction - With the aforesaid directions, Civil Revision Petition stands partly allowed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed – Petition partly allowed.
(Prayer in CRP (PD) No.3240 of 2014 Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution against the decreetal order dated 04.02.2014 of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A. No.317 of 2003, in O.S. No.7009 of 2011.
Prayer in CRP (PD) No.3241 of 2014 Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution against the decreetal order dated 04.02.2014 of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A. No.318 of 2003, in O.S. No.7009 of 2011.)
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the common order, dated 04.02.2014 passed by the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A Nos.317 of 2013 and 318 of 2013 in O.S. No.7009 of 2011.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition:-
2. The petitioner in both Civil Revision Petitions is the first defendant in the suit O.S. No.7009 of 2011 filed by the first respondent / plaintiff. The suit was filed for the following relief against the petitioner :
For declaration that the sale deed dated 03.01.2006 and registered as document 42/2006 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
3. A written statement was filed by the petitioner in the suit, wherein the petitioner has categorically pleaded that since, the suit schedule property is outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Chennai, City Civil Court, Chennai does not have territorial jurisdiction as it is against the provisions of sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, it has been pleaded that the first respondent / plaintiff has deliberately undervalued the suit and has not paid the proper court fee.
4. During the pendency of the suit I.A. No.317 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner under Section 16(d) read with Section 151 CPC and order XIV, Rule 5 CPC to decide whether the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to try, entertain and prosecute the suit as a preliminary issue.
5. I.A. No.318 of 2013 in O.S. No.7009 of 2011 was also filed by the petitioner / first defendant under Section 27(D) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit valuation Act seeking for a direction to determine the correct court fee payable for the prayer sought in the plaint filed in O.S. No.7009 of 2011.
6. A common counter was filed by the first respondent / plaintiff in I.A. Nos.317 and 318 of 2013. In the said common counter, the first respondent has pleaded that the suit is very much maintainable, before the City Civil Court at Chennai, since no transfer of title to the property has taken place in favour of the petitioner / first defendant and the property is still in her possession and therefore, the Trial Court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit and Sections 15, 16, and 17 of CPC are not attracted, even though the suit schedule property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
7. By a common order, dated 04.02.2014, the Trial Court dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications viz., I.A.Nos.317 and 318 of 2013 filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. Nos.317 and 318 of 2013 in O.S. No.7009 of 2011, the instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Heard Mr.Sandeep S. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the first respondent. Despite service of notice on the 2nd respondent and his name having been printed in the cause list today, there is no appearance on his side.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the subject property is situated at Kanukulapattam Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram district, which is outside the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai, the Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He drew the attention of this Court to the latest Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in the case of K.Paranthaman, Proprietor, American Organic Food Products Inc., versus C. Padmanabhan reported in 2019 (3)
