C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.1725 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.1725 of 2021

Chellathangam

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Kumaresan

2.Thirumal

3.Seetha

4.Pushparani

5.Godwin

6.Asha

7.Nesika

... Respondents/Defendants

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order passed by the

Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, in unnumbered suit in O.S.No. of

2021 (Filling No.CF 2193-filing OS/149/2021 (TNKKOC0001192021) dated

07.08.2021 and consequently, direct the learned Subordinate Judge,

Kuzhithurai to number the unnumbered O.S.No. of 2021 by allowing

this civil revision petition.

For Petitioner

: Mr.B.Christopher

ORDER

The above civil revision petition is filed challenging the

returns being made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai in

unnumbered suit in O.S.No.-- of 2021 (Filing No. CF 2193-filing

OS/149/2021(TNKKOC0001192021)), dated 07.08.2021, directing the

petitioner/plaintiff to provide the value of the suit property for

the purpose of ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

2.The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of her 1/5^th

share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has valued the

property notionally at Rs.3,00,000/-. The suit has been instituted

on 15.03.2021. The learned Subordinate Judge had returned the

papers. One of the return was that the value of the property and

the plaintiff's share should be specified and the guideline value

had also to be filed. The plaintiff had re-presented the papers

stating that for the purpose of Section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court

Fees and Suit Valuation Act, a notional value alone is required and

not the market value. Once again, the learned Subordinate Judge had

returned the papers stating that in the light of Section 7 of the

Amended Court Fees Act, the guideline value fixed under Section 47

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.1725 of 2021

(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, has to be specified. The plaintiff has

not complied with the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge and

insisted that the case being one for partition and a notional value

would suffice. The learned Judge had returned the papers on

07.08.2021 for the following reasons:-

This case is filed for partition of plaintiff share,

valued at Rs.3,00,000/- and Court fee paid u/s 37(2) of TNCF

Act. This Court already returned this plaint, on what basis

the plaintiff share value, valued at Rs.3,00,000/- to

determine this Court's pecuniary jurisdiction to maintain

this suit.

The plaintiff counsel was not answered to the above said

clarification. As per Section 7(2) for partition of

plaintiff share in a joint possession fixed court fee

Rs.5,000/- other than High Court. But to determine the

pecuniary jurisdiction of Court the partition suit by

District or Sub Court or Munsif Court the value of the

plaintiff share to be stated. In this case the plaintiff

stated in his plaint, the plaint's share value is

Rs.3,00,000/-. But nowhere stated on what basis that

plaintiff's share value, valued at Rs.3,00,000/-. 11 items

of properties mentioned in this plaint. None of the

properties market value stated in this plaint. How this

plaintiff share value assessed, his share value is

Rs.3,00,000/- on what basis the plaintiff assessed his share

value is Rs.3,00,000/- to be stated to entertain this suit by

this Court and to maintain this suit by this Court on

pecuniary jurisdiction.

Explanation given not sufficient to clarify the above

said query raised by this Court. Hence, returned. Time one

months.

3.It is this docket order that is the subject matter of

challenge. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit

Valuation Ac