IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 5466 of 2025 and

CMP No. 27541 of 2025

1. Sarasammal

2. A. Ravi 3. A.Sekar 4. V.Mala

5. D. Radhakrishnan

6. Malleeswari

7. Vijayalakshmi Petitioners

Vs

1. G.Punitha Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ponneri made in IA.No.1 of 2024 in OS.No.18 of 2013

dated 21^st March 2025.

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Selvakumar

For Respondent: Mr.R. Munuswamy

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants with

regard to the valuation of the suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 6/25^th share in ‘A’ schedule properties and 6/50^th share in ‘B’ schedule properties. She also sought for declaration that settlement deed dated 13.02.2003, 29.03.2005 and sale deed dated 22.02.2006 and 21.6.2012 were null and void.

3. In the written statement filed by the petitioners, the petitioners disputed the valuation adopted by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was also stated that plaintiff was not in joint possession of the suit property and hence the suit should have been valued under Section 37(1) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965 and the valuation done by the plaintiff under Section

37(2) of the said Act was not correct.

4. The trial was already over and the suit was posted for arguments of defendants. At that stage, the instant application has been filed by the petitioners/ defendants seeking framing of additional issues with regard to the correctness of the valuation adopted in the plaint and also the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the plaint. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on various grounds including delay. The trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that questions relating to valuation shall be heard and decided before recording of evidence as per section

12 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965 and hence, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was specifically disputed in the plaint. In spite of the same, the trial Court failed to frame any issue regarding the valuation and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file the present application seeking framing of additional issues.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by drawing attention of this Court to section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965, submitted that all questions relating to valuation of the suit shall be decided before recording of the evidence and therefore, the application filed by the petitioners is not at all maintainable at this stage. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.S Sukumaran V. C.Thangamuthu reported in reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705.

7. The main relief sought for in this suit is partition. As far as the relief regarding invalidity of the sale deed is concerned, the suit has been valued under section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965 and there is no dispute with regard to the same. The dispute was raised by the defendants with regard to the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of relief of partition. A perusal of the written statement would clearly indicate that the market value of the suit property mentioned in the plaint was specifically denied and it was also stated that value of the suit property was upto Rs.10,000/- per cent. The plaintiff valued the suit property at Rs.1000/- per cent. Though an objection was raised by the defendants regarding f