2025:MHC:3001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

CRP NO.2612 OF 2023

AND

CMP NO.16105 OF 2023

Raju Joseph ... Petitioner /

st

Petitioner / 1 Defendant

Versus

1.Rosy Babu

2.Mary Josephin ... Respondents 1 & 2 /

Respondents 1 & 2 / Plaintiffs

rd

3.Peter Xavier ... 3 Respondent /

rd nd 3 Respondent / 2

Defendant

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated March 17, 2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.53 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at

Poonamallee by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Shagul Hameed

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Muthamilraja

O R D E R

Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decretal Order dated March

17, 2023 passed by 'the III Additional District & Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee' ['Trial Court' for convenience] in the Interlocutory Application filed under Section 12(2) of 'The Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955' ['TNCF Act' for short] in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.53 of 2016, the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.The Revision Petitioner herein is the First Defendant;

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs; and Respondent No.3 is the Second Defendant in the Original Suit in O.S.No.53 of 2016 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3.The Defendants 1 and 2 (sons) and the Plaintiffs (daughters)

are the children born to the couple A.J.Mathew – Elizabeth Mathew. Elizabeth Mahew pre-deceased A.J.Mathew on October 22, 1997. A.J.Mathew passed away intestate on July 15, 2005. Admittedly, the parties to the suit and their parents belong to Christianity. Hence, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable.

3.1.The Plaintiffs filed a Suit for partition stating that the Suit Property was purchased by their father - A.J.Mathew vide Sale Deed dated November 10, 1997. A.J.Mathew passed away intestate on July 15, 2005 leaving behind the Plaintiffs and the Defendants as his surviving legal heirs / legal representatives to succeed his estate. According to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are co-owners and co-heirs entitled to equal share. The Plaintiffs sought for division of the Suit Property into four equal shares and allotment of one such share in favour of each of the Plaintiffs. They also sought for rendition of accounts under Order XX Rule 18 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating / encumbering the Suit Property.

3.2.The Plaintiffs valued the Suit as hereunder:

“11.The plaintiffs have valued the suit for their 2/4 share in the suit property for the purpose of the Court Fee and Jurisdiction as follows:

In respect of prayer “A” suit is for a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and thereby divide the property by 4 shares and allot ½ share each to the plaintiff and the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the property.

VALUE SCHEDULE PROPERTY:

Land as per guideline value = 2137 x 2200 = 47,01,400/- Building = 750 x 500 = 3,75,000/- Total (Approx.) Rs.50,76,400/- Value of Plaintiff's share = 50,76,400/4x2 = 2538200/- In respect of mesne profits, the value of the same has to be ascertained, the same is presently valued at Rs.100/- and pays a court fee of Rs.8/-.

For Prayer Value Court Fee u/sec. “A” Rs.2538200/- Rs.750.00 37(2) “B” Rs.100/- Rs.8.00 44(1) “C” Rs.1,000/- Rs.75.50 27(c)

of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The plaintiff may be deemed in possession of the schedule property.”

4.The First Defendant filed written statement stating that the defendants' father was a mere name lender. The First Defendant was working