IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.No.1658 of 2017 Arumugam, S/o. Annamalai Pillai ... Petitioner Vs.

1. K.S.Periyasamy, S/o.Chockalingam

2. Viswanathan, S/o. Pandurangan

3. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi, Villupuram Dt. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 14.03.2017 made in O.S.No. Unnumbered of 2017 in R.No.1008 of 2017 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankarapuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan For Respondents : Mr.A.Aravindan for M/s.Arul Selvan Associates for R1 Mr.Raja Senthoor Pandian, for R2 R3 – Not ready in notice

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the unumbered suit filed against the defendants claiming the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed stands in the name of respondents viz., defendants 1 and 2 dated

30.06.2014 as null and void.

2. The said suit was returned by the trial court stating that the court fee paid by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is lesser than the value of the property because as per the recitals of sale deed, the value of property was mentioned as Rs.32,00,000/-. But, he filed the present plaint under Sec.25(d) of C.P.C. by paying court fee of Rs.377.50. So, the learned trial judge rejected the plaint stating that the court fee paid by him, as such is not acceptable one. Hence, the trial judge returned the plaint.

3. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 raised objection stating that already the children of plaintiff Arumugam filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.105 of 2001 against these defendants before the District Court, Kallakurichi. In that suit, with regard to the sale deed, they are seeking a prayer of declaration to declare the sale deed as null void.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for the same relief.

3. By way of reply, the learned counsel for Revision Petitioner submitted that the partition suit filed by son and daughters of Revision Petitioner is nothing to do with the claim over the suit property, because he is the absolute owner of the property and the said document was forcibly executed as security for the loan transaction, which is sham and nominal one. Therefore, he is having valid defence to declare the sale deed as sham and nominal and he is also having independent right over the suit property, which is nothing to do with the partition suit filed by his children. So, the plaintiff wanted to set aside the findings rendered by the trial court because he is ready to pay court fee.

4. On considering submissions of both sides and facts, it reveals that the plaintiff approached the court to declare the sale deed stands in the name of defendants 1 and 2 as null and void because it was executed as security for the loan transaction as sham and nominal document. As the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, he has paid lesser court fee. So, it was returned to the plaintiff and now he wanted to pay appropriate court fee, thereby, the plaintiff is entitled to declare his right over the property by valid defence. So, the partition suit filed by the children of plaintiff is nothing to do with his claim over the present suit property, because his right over the property is independent one with regard to the relief claimed in the partition suit.

5. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with a direction directing the plaintiff to pay appropriate court fee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, after rejecting the plaint, this Civil Revision Petition was filed, hence, the period of this Civil Revision Petition pending before this Court is directed to be excluded and liberty is also granted to the petitioner and the defendants 1 and 2 to raise all their defence in the suit, which