The main legal point established is that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine the property's value is not necessary when the trial has proceeded, and both parties can adduce evidence by summoning officials. Cooperation and timely disposal of the case are essential.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 18.10.2019 in I.A.No.43 of 2015 in O.S.No.243 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Judge of the Nilgiris at Ooty.)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 18.10.2019 in I.A.No.43 of 2015 in O.S.No.243 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Judge of the Nilgiris at Ooty.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had filed a Petition in I.A.No.43 of 2015 in O.S.No.243 of 2013. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are the Defendants in the suit in O.S.No.243 of 2013. The Petitioners had filed I.A.No.43 of 2015 in O.S.No.243 of 2013 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out the value of the suit property. Based on the Advocate Commissioner’s report, the value of the property can be considered by the Court after arriving at the value for the property whether the Court fee paid by the Respondents as Plaintiffs was correct is to be gone into. The Respondents/Plaintiffs in the suit vehemently objected to the same. Therefore, after due enquiry, the learned Sub Judge/Civil Judge Senior Division, Uthagamandalam had dismissed the I.A.No.43 of 2015 in O.S.No.243 of 2013. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sub Judge/Civil Judge Senior Division, Uthagamandalam in dismissing the Petition in I.A.No.43 of 2015 in O.S.No.243 of 2013 filed by the Defendants, had preferred this Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the prayer in the plaint which reads as under:

“1. To declare that the first Plaintiff has not gifted away the “A” schedule property in favour of the first defendant and direct the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the “A” schedule property to the first Plaintiff.

2. To declare that the first Plaintiff has not gifted away the “B” & “C” schedule properties in favour of the first Defendant.

3. To declare that the gift deed bearing Document No.1189/2009, dated 23.09.2009 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar, Ooty is null and void with respect to the suit schedule properties.

4. To order cost of the suit.

5. To pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”

4. Further, he invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 18 of the plaint regarding court fee paid which reads as under:

“18. The Plaintiffs value the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of declaration that the first plaintiff has not gifted away the “A” schedule property in favour of the first defendant and also to recover the possession of the “A” schedule property from the defendants at Rs.133410/- and paid a sum of Rs.10,005.75/- as court fee under Section 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act. The first plaintiff value the suit for the relief of declaration that the first plaintiff has not gifted away the “B” and “C” schedule property in favour of the first Defendant at Rs.1000/- and paid a sum of Rs.75.50/- as court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The first Plaintiff value the relief of declaration that the gift deed bearing document No.1189/2009 of the Joint Sub Registrar, Ooty is null and void with respect to the suit schedule properties at Rs.1000/- and paid a sum of Rs.75.50/- as court fee under Section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.”

5. Also, he invited the attention of this Court to the List of Documents filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs along with the Plaint which reads as under:

“List of Documents

1. Legal notice dated 08.02.2011 from the first plaintiff to the first defendant.

2. Reply notice dated 16.02.2011 f