Advocates:
['V RAJESH', '', 'N NARAYANASWAMY', 'm/s c prabakaran', '', 's suresh kumar', 'm siva kumar']

CRP. No.3436 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRP. No.3436 of 2019

Srinivasan

...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Senniappan

2.Vasantha

3.Saravanan

4.Shankar Kumar

5.Thulasimani

6.Kokila

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated

19.07.2019 made in I.A No.2 of 2019 in O.S No.1059 nof 2013 on the file

of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Rajesh

For R1 to R6 : Mr.C.Prabakaran

1

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

CRP. No.3436 of 2019

ORDER

This Civil Revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair

and final Order dated 19.07.2019 made in I.A No.2 of 2019 in O.S No.1059

of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S No.

1059 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem

for the relief of declaration to declare sale deed as null and void and for

other consequential relief in respect of suit properties, the said suit is

contested by the defendant and denied the plaintiffs case, the Trial Court

framed issues and both side evidence was closed and the case was posted

for arguments. At that time, the defendants filed I.A No. 2 of 2019 praying

to frame additional issues with regard to payment of Court fee and also

another issue with regard to land lord and tenant relationship. The said

application was strongly objected by the plaintiff and the same could not be

accepted without detailed counter. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court

allowed I.A No. 2 of 2019 by holding that to avoid multiplicity of

proceedings, additional issues have to be framed.

2

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

CRP. No.3436 of 2019

3.Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred this Civil

Revision Petition by stating that the Trial Court failed to take note of the

fact with regard to issue relating to Court fee which has to be decided under

Section 12(2) of Court fee Act, as a preliminary issue and not after the

examining of the Trial Court, without appreciating legal aspects and had

erroneously allowed the application. To support his contention, he relied the

Judgment reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705 in Sukumaran and others Vs

C.Thangamuthu and others:

31. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and having regard to the law

discussed hereinabove, the reference is answered as under :-

(1) The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Section 12) enacted by

the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List, albeit inconsistent

with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Order XIV, Rule 2) and being in

compliance with the requirement of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, having

been given assent by the President of India, shall prevail over the provisions of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

(2) When a defendant comes forward with a case pleaded in the written statement

questioning the correctness of the valuation of the suit property and payment of court

fee and asks the Court, by an application, to decide it first before deciding the suit on

merits, then a duty is cast upon the Court under Section 12(2) of the State Act to first

decide the objection before deciding the suit on merits.

(3) However, before proceeding to decide the objection with regard to valuation and

court fee as provided under Section 12(2) of the State Act, the Court shall prima facie

3

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

CRP. No.3436 of 2019

satisfy itself, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on

record, that the objection raised by the defendant has substance.

(4) Such objection with regard to im