2025:MHC:3003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15/12/2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

C.R.P. NO.3376 OF 2023

AND

C.M.P.NO.21014 OF 2023

Mr.Ramanujam ... Petitioner/ Petitioner/

nd

2 Defendant

Vs.

1.Mrs.Lakshmi 2.Sundara Babu 3.Ranganathan

4.Valarmathi

5.Narasimman

6.Kothandaraman

7.Dharashini(Minor)

Rep. by her mother Maheswari

8.Venkatesan 9.Srinivasan 10.Subathra

11.Parthasarathy ... Respondents 1 to 11 /

Respondents 1 to 11/

Plaintiffs 12.Sheela

13.Venkataraman ... Respondents 12 & 13 /

Respondents 12 & 13

Defendants 1 & 3

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Order dated April 21,

2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.284 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan For Respondents-

1 to 5, 6, 7, 9 & 10 : Mr.D.Rajagopal Respondents-

8, 11 & 13 : Batta due Respondent-12 : Served. No Appearance

O R D E R

nd The Revision Petitioner herein is the 2 defendant in the Original Suit in O.S.No.284 of 2018 on the file of 'the Additional District Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'). The Respondents 1 to 11 herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents 12 & 13 are the defendants 1 & 3 in the aforementioned Suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit before the Trial Court.

2. One Perumal Pillai and one Sulochanammal are husband and wife. The couple have three sons and two daughters. Ramadass, Krishna Pillai and Parthasarathy are the sons, and Saraswathy and Aandalammal are the daughters. In this case, plaintiffs 1 to 7 are claiming through said Ramadass, plaintiffs 8 to 10 are claiming through said Krishna Pillai and th the 11 plaintiff is the said Parthasarathy. The defendants are claiming through said Saraswathy. Aandalammal died after her marriage without any issues.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Suit 'A' Schedule Property originally belonged to Sulochana Ammal and the Suit 'B' Schedule th Property belonged to Perumal Pillai, who are the parents of the 11 plaintiff and grandparents of plaintiffs 1 to 10. After their demise, the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to ¾ share and the defendants are jointly entitled to ¼ share in the Suit Properties. While so, the defendants attempted to alienate the suit properties by way of two Release Deeds dated December 15, 2003 and July 08, 2005 and one Settlement Deed dated May 16, 2008. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the Suit for partition; separate possession; and for declaration that the Release Deeds and Settlement Deed are null and void.

nd

4.In the Original Suit, the 2 Defendant filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) in I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the Suit was under-valued and Court Fee paid was incorrect and also on the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation.

nd According to the 2 defendant, the plaintiffs conveniently valued the Suit under Section 25 (d) of 'the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955' ('TNCF Act' for short), while they ought to have valued the Suit under Section 40 of the TNCF Act. Hence, the relief claimed by the plaintiffs have been under-valued and they have not paid proper Court Fee. Further, the Suit is filed in the year 2018 while the declaration sought in respect of documents dating to 2003, 2005 and 2008. Hence, the Suit is barred by limitation.

5.The Trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the Interlocutory Application. The Trial Court reasoned out that the plaintiffs are not parties to the documents sought to be declared as null and void and hence, the Court Fee paid under Section 25 (d) of TNCF Act is correct. Further, the Trial Court observed that according to the plaintiffs, they came to know about the existence of the docu