SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice B.PUGALENDHI
2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 10.01.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI C.R.P(MD)No.2020
PD(MD)No.2020



The pecuniary jurisdiction of a court in a suit for partition is determined by the value of the plaintiff's share in the property, not the entire property value.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR PARTITION - SHARE VALUE - [The pecuniary jurisdiction of a court in a suit for partition is determined by the value of the plaintiff's share in the property, not the entire property value.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit for partition of joint family property, claiming a 1/4th share valued at Rs. 4,49,475/-. The District Judge returned the plaint, holding that the court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the entire property value exceeded Rs. 10,00,000/- and should be filed before a Subordinate Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court in a suit for partition is determined by the value of the plaintiff's share in the property, not the entire property value. Relying on Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, the court held that the District Judge erred in considering the entire property value and that the suit should have been admitted by the Subordinate Court.

Issues: Whether the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court in a suit for partition is determined by the value of the plaintiff's share in the property or the entire property value.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, which defines the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judges and Subordinate Judges. The court also relied on its earlier decision in G. Lokanayaki v. Venkatraj, 2013 (2) CTC 288, which held that the suit value for determining pecuniary jurisdiction is the value of the plaintiff's share in the property.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and directed the registry to return the original plaint to the petitioner for filing before the appropriate Subordinate Court.

C.R.P PD(MD)No.2020 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 10.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

C.R.P(MD)No.2020 of 2022

Nagajothi

... Petitioner

Vs

1.M.Ramuthai

2.M.Suriya

3.Sundareshan

4.Parvatharaj

5.S.Ramkumar

6.K.Aathilingam

7.S.Lakshmanakumar

... Respondents

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

Constitution of India, to set aside the order of return dated 07.09.2022 by

the Principal District Judge, Theni in unnumbered filing

No.OS/10847/2022 CNR No.TNTH010047702022, on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Theni and direct the learned Judge to take the

suit on file.

For Petitioner

: Mr.D.Malaichamy

For Respondents

: No appearance

1/8

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

C.R.P PD(MD)No.2020 of 2022

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order of

return dated 07.09.2022 by the learned Principal District Judge, Theni in

unnumbered filing No.OS/10847/2022 CNR No. TNTH010047702022,

dated 07.09.2022.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above suit before the Principal

District Court, Theni as against the respondents herein, for the relief of

partition for her share in the joint family property and also for permanent

injunction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the value

of suit property is Rs.17,62,700/-. The value of plaintiff's ¼ share is Rs.

4,49,475/-. The court fee was paid under Section 37 (2) of Tamil Nadu

Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 for Rs.5,000/-. The learned

District Judge, Theni returned the plaint for certain defects including a

query of jurisdiction as per the share value of the property on 24.08.2022

2/8

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

C.R.P PD(MD)No.2020 of 2022

and the same was re-presented by the plaintiff on 30.08.2022 after

compliance of the defects. With regard to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff

has stated that as per Section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit

Valuation Act, the value of the plaintiff's share or market value of the suit

property has no relevance and payment of court fee alone has to be

considered. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel

has relied upon the citations 2013 (2) CTC 342 and 1995 MLJ NOC 30.

Thereafter, on 07.09.2022, the plaint was once again returned with the

following endorsement:-

''To state how this Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction of

share value. As per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil

Court Laws to try a suit to the value of Rs.10,00,000/- is

having jurisdiction of Sub Court. Hence, to be presented

before the appropriate Court. Judgment relied on 2013

(2) CTC 288.''

Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3/8

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

C.R.P PD(MD)No.2020 of 2022

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner projected that

as per the amended act of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act,

the total market value of suit property alone has to be reckoned for the

purpose of deciding the court fees and as per section 53 of Tamil Nadu

Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, where the fee payable is at a fixed

rate the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts

shall be the market value of the suit property. Therefore, the Court has

erroneously returned the papers.

4. The jurisdiction of District Judge and Subordinate Judge is

defined under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 as

follows: -

12. Jurisdiction of District Judge or Subordinate

Judge in original suits.-[The jurisdiction of a District

Judge extends, subject to the rules contained in the

Code of Civil Procedure, to all original suits and

proceedings of a civil nature, of which the amount of

value of the subject matter exceeds five lakh rupees.

The jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge extends,

4/8

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

C.R.P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top