N.V.Sennan v. Annamalai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 14.09.2021 Delivered on : 28.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN CRP. (PD) No. 4160 of 2019 and C.M.P. No. 27104 of 2019 1.N.V.Sennan 2.Mani @ Ilayaperumal ... Petitioners

Versus

1.Annamalai 2.Varadharajan 3.Vasanthi 4.V.Gnanasekaran 5.V.Kavitha 6.V.Umamaheswari P.Murugesan (Deceased) 7.Indirani 8.Gavasakar 9.Mooventhen 10.Poongothai T.P.Arthanari (Deceased) 11.A.Venkatachalam 12.Thavamani ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 01.10.2019 made in I.A. No.260 1/8

of 2019 in O.S. No.674 of 2008 - on the file of the District Munsif, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District by allowing the above Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Sriram for Mr. V.Rajesh For Respondents - 7&8 : Mr. T.Jayamraj for E.Paulraj O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri, in I.A. No.260 of 2019 in O.S. No.674 of 2008, dated 01.10.2019.

2. I.A. No.260 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 & Section 151 CPC, for rejecting the counter claim made in O.S. No.674 of 2008.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the suit property belongs to respondents 1 to 6 and they leased out the property to the petitioners on 26.02.1994, after executing a lease deed. The petitioners took possession of the property on 01.03.1993. The lease deed is for the period of ten years from the 2/8

date of lease and the lease amount is Rs.1,00,000/-. During the pendency of the suit, the seventh respondent died and his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 8 to 11 in the suit. The respondents 8 to 10 filed counter claim in the suit claiming the relief of declaration and possession. The counter claim is under valued as per Section 25(a) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It is claimed by the respondents 8 to 11 that the seventh respondent purchased the property for Rs.1,98,000/-. In a suit between the seventh respondent and his vendors in O.S. No.469 of 1994, a decree was passed against the vendor. He filed an appeal in A.S. No.42 of 1998 and it ended in compromise. The seventh respondent paid an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the value of the suit property is Rs.3,98,000/-. There is no cause of action for the counter claim. The counter claim is under valued.

4. The respondents 8 to 10 filed counter challenging the claim made by the petitioners and submitted that the seventh respondent purchased the suit property for Rs.1,98,000/-. The suit property is an agricultural land and the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the suit property. The petitioners have also valued the suit property under Section 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Therefore, the valuation of the counter claim under Section 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, is correct. 3/8

The counter claim was filed on 23.11.2004. Issues were framed on the basis of counter claim. The suit was dismissed for default on 08.01.2019 and the case was pending for deciding counter claim of the respondents. Therefore, the petition filed in the year 2019, for rejecting the counter claim, is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings.

5. The learned District Munsif, Pappireddipatti, on considering the rival submissions, dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is seen from the case of the respondents that the seventh respondent said to have purchased the property for Rs.1,98,000/- and he paid additional Rs.2,00,000/- for settling the dispute with his vendor. As such, a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- was spent on purchasing of property and there is no cause of action stated in the written statement for claiming counter claim. Only now the respondents have filed an application for amending the written statement for including the cause of action. The valuation of the counter claim and payment of fees are also not proper. However, without considering these aspects, the learned District Munsif, Pappireddipatti, dismissed the petition. 4/8

7. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents 8 to 10 have made sufficient pleadings in their written statement making out cause of action for claiming the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession by way of counter claim. Cause of action is a bundle of facts. The entire plaint or written statement, in case counter claim is claimed, should be read for finding the cause of action. The application for amending the written statement to include cause of action paragraph is filed to consolidate the cause of action in a paragraph. Already they have sufficiently mentioned in the written statement about the cause of action. Therefore the value adopted and Court fee paid is correct. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. This suit is of the year 2008. Even as per the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants 1 to 6 / respondents 1 to 6 herein are the owners of the suit property. The deceased seventh defendant said to have purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 to 6. After his death, his legal heirs were impleaded as D8 to D11. D8 to D10 filed a written statement on 23.11.2004, claiming that the plaintiffs are in illegal occupation of the suit property and therefore, they prayed for declaration of the title and for recovery of possession.

5/8

9. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. The suit property is an agricultural land and there is no dispute in this regard. The Court fee was valued at Rs.400/- and Rs.30.50/- was paid as Court fee as per Section 25 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The respondents 8 to 10 have also valued the suit property under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, on the basis of kist value. This valuation of the suit under Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, is perfectly right and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit was not properly valued and no proper Court fee was paid, cannot be accepted.

10. Reading of the written statement shows that the respondents 8 to 10 have made out sufficient cause of action for claiming the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is now claimed that only to consolidate the cause of action in a single paragraph, the amendment petition is filed and it is pending. Since there are pleadings with regard to cause of action in the written statement, the petitioners cannot contend that the respondents 8 to 10 have no cause of action for claiming the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The learned District Munsif, Pappireddipatti, has considered all these aspects rightly and dismissed the petition. 6/8

11. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Pappireddipatti, in I.A. No.260 of 2019 in O.S. No.674 of 2008, dated 01.10.2019 and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.09.2021 bkn Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order Internet : Yes / No Copy To:

The District Munsif, Pappireddipatti 7/8

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN. J., bkn Pre-Delivery order made in CRP. (PD) No.4160 of 2019 .

28.09.2021 8/8