BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.1725 of 2021 Chellathangam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Kumaresan

2.Thirumal

3.Seetha

4.Pushparani

5.Godwin

6.Asha

7.Nesika ... Respondents PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order passed by the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, in unnumbered suit in O.S.No. of 2021 (Filling No.CF 2193-filing OS/149/2021 (TNKKOC0001192021) dated 07.08.2021 and consequently, direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai to number the unnumbered O.S.No. of 2021 by allowing this civil revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Christopher

ORDER

The above civil revision petition is filed challenging the returns being made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai in unnumbered suit in O.S.No.-- of 2021 (Filing No. CF 2193-filing OS/149/2021(TNKKOC0001192021)), dated 07.08.2021, directing the petitioner/plaintiff to provide the value of the suit property for the purpose of ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

2.The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of her 1/5^th share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has valued the property notionally at Rs.3,00,000/-. The suit has been instituted on 15.03.2021. The learned Subordinate Judge had returned the papers. One of the return was that the value of the property and the plaintiff's share should be specified and the guideline value had also to be filed. The plaintiff had re-presented the papers stating that for the purpose of Section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, a notional value alone is required and not the market value. Once again, the learned Subordinate Judge had returned the papers stating that in the light of Section 7 of the Amended Court Fees Act, the guideline value fixed under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, has to be specified. The plaintiff has not complied with the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge and insisted that the case being one for partition and a notional value would suffice. The learned Judge had returned the papers on 07.08.2021 for the following reasons:-

This case is filed for partition of plaintiff share, valued at Rs.3,00,000/- and Court fee paid u/s 37(2) of TNCF Act. This Court already returned this plaint, on what basis the plaintiff share value, valued at Rs.3,00,000/- to determine this Court's pecuniary jurisdiction to maintain this suit.

The plaintiff counsel was not answered to the above said clarification. As per Section 7(2) for partition of plaintiff share in a joint possession fixed court fee Rs.5,000/- other than High Court. But to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of Court the partition suit by District or Sub Court or Munsif Court the value of the plaintiff share to be stated. In this case the plaintiff stated in his plaint, the plaint's share value is Rs. 3,00,000/-. But nowhere stated on what basis that plaintiff's share value, valued at Rs.3,00,000/-. 11 items of properties mentioned in this plaint. None of the properties market value stated in this plaint. How this plaintiff share value assessed, his share value is Rs.3,00,000/- on what basis the plaintiff assessed his share value is Rs.3,00,000/- to be stated to entertain this suit by this Court and to maintain this suit by this Court on pecuniary jurisdiction.

Explanation given not sufficient to clarify the above said query raised by this Court. Hence, returned. Time one months.

3.It is this docket order that is the subject matter of challenge.

Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act has been amended as follows:-

7.Determination of market value:-(1)Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint. (2) The market value of land in suits falling under sections 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37 (1), 37 (3), 38,45 or

48 shall b