CRP No.1267 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.11.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.No.1267 of 2023

and

CMP.No.8541 of 2023

Saifuddin Sajauddin Mamoowala (died)

1.Ismail Sajauddin Mamoowala

2.Nafisa Bai

3.Nafisa

4.Rabab

...

Petitioners

/vs/

1.Mahaveerchand Kothari

2.M/s.Kriticons Ltd.,

Rep.By its Managing Director,

D.K.Jain, Having Regd.Office at

No.3, Ceebros Centre, V Floor,

Door No.45, Montieth Road, Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

...

Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.40

of 2011 by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner

... Mr.A.S.Baalaji

For Respondent ... No such person

No.1

For Respondent ... Mr.K.Balamurali

No.2

for Mr.Shivakumar

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.1267 of 2023

O R D E R

Challenging the impugned docket order dated 09.01.2023 passed in

O.S.No.40 of 2011 by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, the present

civil revision petition has been filed.

2.Before the trial Court, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs originally

filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2011 for declaration declaring the sale deed dated

17.04.2006 as null and void and other reliefs. Immediately, thereafter in the

year 2011, the second respondent filed a written statement denying the

averment made in the plaint stating that the property is not a vacant land and

in the property, 48 flats were constructed after obtaining CMDA approval.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an I.A.No.1916 of 2014 praying recovery of

possession and other consequential relief of possession of the suit property

after demolishing the structures if any made in the suit property and

mandatory injunction directing the 2^nd defendant to remove the constructions

made and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs pertaining to the

suit property. That application was allowed on 11.10.2022. Therefore, the

trial Court, on perusal of the pleadings, passed the order stating that after the

proposed amendment, the suit property was not ryotwari land. Now, the suit

property is converted into house site. So, the contention of the plaintiffs that

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.1267 of 2023

the land as a land capable of assessing the market value cannot be accepted

and the plaintiffs' plea to fix the Court fee based on kist value of the suit

property also has not been accepted and he was directed to pay the Court fee

based on the market value of the suit property within one month. Aggrieved

by the finding of the trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed the present civil

revision petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that while

passing the impugned order, the trial Judge has not mentioned the period, on

which, the market value of the suit property is to be valued. In fact, the

settled proposition that once the amendment is allowed towards the original

cause of action, accordingly, the suit is filed in the year 2011 and the trial

Court ought to have mentioned the period, on which, the plaintiff has to

calculate the market value.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

immediately after filing of the suit in the year 2011 itself, they have filed the

written statement stating that the land is converted into the house site and

there is no vacant site as pleaded by the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff ought to

have paid the Court fee as per the market value on assessing the suit property

instead he paid the Court fee under Section 25 d, as such is not permissible.

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.1267 of 2023

5.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel