← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/433/2019disposed of

R.Vijayalakshmi, v. S.Mohammed Bilal, Rep.By His

2023-09-04Honourable Mr. Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.433 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD) No.2218 of 2019

1. R.Vijayalakshmi

2. Minor R.Sanjai

3. Minor R.Mythili ... Petitioners/Defendants (Petitioners 2 and 3 represented by their mother and next friend Vijayalakshmi) -vsS.Mohammed Bilal represented by his Father/Power Agent, A.Sheik Dawood, No.1/62 A, Indhira Nagar, Pulivalam, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District.

... Respondent/ Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur. For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan 1/6

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.50 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Court below.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2018 has to be struck off from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur, on the ground of under valuation of the suit. He would further submits that, the suit has to be valued under Section 25-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. According to the petitioners if that being the case, the suit has to be valued according to the market value qua as per the sale deed, which stands in the name of the respondent. He 2/6

would further submit that as per the plaintiff sale deed the market value of the suit property is of Rs.81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs only). Therefore, he would submit that in view of the under valuation of the suit, the same has to be struck off.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, the issue of valuation of suit is mixed question of facts and law, and he would further submit that the very prayer for striking off plaint cannot be directly sought for without availing the opportunity before the Court below by taking a preliminary issue in respect of the valuation of the suit. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

7. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the very suit has been under valued. Further, on mere perusal of the plaint, the same refers that the suit has been valued based upon the guideline value. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would 3/6

invite the attention of this Court to the sale deed dated 03.04.2017, which stands in the name of the respondent herein and would submit that, even according to the respondent, the market value of the suit property at Rs.81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs only).

8. However, this Court is of the view that when the plaint itself speaks about the valuation of the suit property based upon the guideline value and the ground alleged by the petitioners herein is with reference to the sale deed dated 03.04.2017, the issue needs further evaluation and could be decided only based upon the evidences to be let in by either side.

9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. However, the petitioners are given liberty to file an application before the Court below and to raise a preliminary issue regarding the valuation of the suit. If such an application is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same according to law within a period of two months thereafter without being influenced by any of the findings made in this order.

4/6

10. Both side counsels would submit that this case is transferred to the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. Registry is directed to mark copy to both the Court.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

04.09.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To

1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur.

2. The III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

ebsi C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.433 of 2019 04.09.2023 6/6