IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.11.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
C.R.P.PD.No.3617 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
1. A.K.Muthusamy
2. A.K.Venkatachalapathy
3. A.K.Eswaramoorthy
A.K.Dhanapathy(died)
4. Thavamanidhevi
5. Santha Dhanapathy
6. Uma Sankar ...Petitioners
Vs
N.P.Palanisamy(died)
1. Subbulakshmi
2. Kalaivani
3. Eswari
4. Sathishkumar ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dated 28.8.2008 made in I.A.No.319 of 2008 in O.S.No.434 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thiagarajan
Senior Counsel
for M/s S.Ramesh Kumar
For respondents : Mr.M.Duraisamy-R1/Caveator
O R D E R
The revision petitioners/petitioners /defendants have preferred this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 28.8.2008 passed in I.A.No.319 of 2008 in O.S.No.434 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC.
2. The trial Court, while passing order in I.A.No.319 of 2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioners have not produced any documentary and oral evidence in regard to the market value of the suit property and in that circumstance, there is no necessity to raise an issue in regard to the valuation of the suit property for the present and resultantly dismissed the application.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants urges before this Court in paragraph 12 of the written statement filed by the revision petitioners that they have categorically stated about the under valuation of the suit property and that as per the plaint document No.4, on 25.11.1998 the first respondent/defendant and his son had sold 1.02 acres adjacent to the suit property describing therein that he resides in the suit property. The said shed mentioned in the schedule in the plaint should be a residential one and should have been separately valued and in the said plaint document No.4, the value as on 1998 has been mentioned as Rs.4,00,000/- and the valuation is found to be much lesser than the market value and the value for the said 1.02 acres has been fixed at Rs.12,45,216/- by No.1,Joint Registrar of Gobi and the vendee paid further stamp duty accepting the valuation by the Joint Registrar No.1,Gobichettipalayam. Therefore, the value of 0.45 cents with a dwelling house even on 1998 itself must be about Rs.6,00,000/- and on the date of suit in 2004,the value must have been much more and therefore, I.A.No.319 of 2008 filed under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC should be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/caveator submits that before the trial Court, the 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter and the same has been adopted by respondents 2 to 4 wherein it is inter alia mentioned that the valuation was found to be much lesser than the market value for the said 1.02 acres fixed at Rs.12,45,216 by No.1, Joint Registrar of Gobichettipalayam and further the vendee paid further stamp duty in the said 1.02 acres is not correct and the property covered under plaint document No.4 has been sold only for the amount mentioned in the document and therefore prays for dismissal of the revision petition since the view taken by the trial Court is correct in law.
5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration in regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and noticed their contentions.
6. A perusal of the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No. 319 of 2008 do clearly indicate that the revision petitioners/ petitioners/defendants have not produced any oral and documentary evidence so as to enable the Court to know exactly what is the market value of the suit property on the date of filing of the plaint etc., It is to be borne in mind that generally the market value of the property given in the plaint will be a guiding factor for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court,in the considered opinion of this Court. In the plaint filed before the trial Curt for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, the plaintiffs have assessed the suit schedule property at Rs.62,000/- and in this half being Rs.31,000/- and accordingly they have paid a sum of Rs.2,325.50ps towards payment of Court Fee as per Section 25(b) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955. When this Court posed a query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether the plaintiffs have paid further stamp duty before the appropriate authorities, the learned counsel is not aware of the same. Hence this Court is of the view that in regard to the market value of the property as on date of filing of the plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs an issue can be framed by the trial Court along with other issues in the suit and the trial Court can dispose of the suit in accordance with law and in that view of the matter this revision petition is disposed of. Accordingly, the trial Court is to frame a specific issue in regard to the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the plaint. Liberty is given to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence to prove the said issue in accordance with law.
7.It is informed that P.W.1 has been examined in chief and the matter stands posted at present for cross examination of P.W.1. Inasmuch as the suit has reached the stage of part heard and taking note of the fact that P.W.1 has been examined in part and he has to be cross examined , this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the main suit along with other issues and after framing a specific issue in regard to the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the plaint within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court in completion of the proceedings so that the contentions/controversies in dispute can be thrashed out completely and comprehensively so as to give quietus in the matter.
8. In fine,this civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
sg
To
1. The District Munsif Court,
Gobichettipalayam