BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08/05/2013
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
C.R.P.(PD) MD.No.924 of 2012
AND
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012
1.Syed Ahamed Kabir
2.Ms.Mohamed Seeni Fathima
3.Ms.Mohamed Mariam Beevi
4.Md.Syed Saheera Hasana . Petitioners/Defendants
Vs
Naina Mohamed Sahib ... Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decretal order dated
13.02.2012 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2011 in O.S.No.137 of 2010 on the file of
District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, and set aside the same.
!For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan
for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
^For Respondent .. Mr.S.Ramesh
:ORDER
The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.137 of 2010 seeking the
relief of declaration and injunction.
2. The defendants filed I.A.No.13 of 2011 under Order 14 Rule 2 r/w.
Section 151 C.P.C., and Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act with a prayer to
decide the court fees as a preliminary issue. The contention in the affidavit
is that the suit property is a house site and the property ought to have been
valued not on the basis of the tax assessment, but on the basis of market value.
This petition was dismissed and as against which, the present revision petition
has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that
the trial Court did not frame proper issues for consideration and without
affording sufficient opportunity has decided the issue. This contention does
not appear to be correct.
4. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court would reveal
that the trial Court has taken note of the following facts:-
a) It is nowhere contended by the defendants that the suit
properties are not ryotwari lands.
b) Just because the suit properties are located in and around
the residential area, it will not lead with the conclusion that the suit
properties would also be used as a house site and that the property ought to
have been valued as a house site.
c) No document has been filed by the defendants to show that
the suit properties are house sites, when the plaintiffs have raised a specific
contention that the suit properties are ryotwari lands.
5. Based on these reasoning, the trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the valuation of the property and the consequent Court fee paid
is also correct.
6. It is not enough for the revision petitioner to contend that the
worth of the property is in crores without showing how the properties can be
construed as house site, when the chitta and patta has been filed to show that
the suit properties are ryotwari lands. Hence, the order passed by the trial
Court did not suffer from illegality or irregularity and therefore, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
7. After this case was heard on merits, the issue regarding
maintainability of revision in respect of matters governing petitions under
Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C., was raised in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1085 to 1088 of 2005 and
1068 of 2006 wherein it has been decided that Revision Petition is not
maintainable. The learned counsel appearing on both sides agreed that the
decision taken in those cases would be applicable to this case also. Therefore,
on the question of maintainability also, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
No costs.
smn2
To
The District Munsif Court,
Ramanathapuram.
DATED: 08/05/2013
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
C.R.P.(PD) MD.No.924 of 2012
AND
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012
1.Syed Ahamed Kabir
2.Ms.Mohamed Seeni Fathima
3.Ms.Mohamed Mariam Beevi
4.Md.Syed Saheera Hasana . Petitioners/Defendants
Vs
Naina Mohamed Sahib ... Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decretal order dated
13.02.2012 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2011 in O.S.No.137 of 2010 on the file of
District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, and set aside the same.
!For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan
for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
^For Respondent .. Mr.S.Ramesh
:ORDER
The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.137 of 2010 seeking the
relief of declaration and injunction.
2. The defendants filed I.A.No.13 of 2011 under Order 14 Rule 2 r/w.
Section 151 C.P.C., and Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act with a prayer to
decide the court fees as a preliminary issue. The contention in the affidavit
is that the suit property is a house site and the property ought to have been
valued not on the basis of the tax assessment, but on the basis of market value.
This petition was dismissed and as against which, the present revision petition
has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that
the trial Court did not frame proper issues for consideration and without
affording sufficient opportunity has decided the issue. This contention does
not appear to be correct.
4. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court would reveal
that the trial Court has taken note of the following facts:-
a) It is nowhere contended by the defendants that the suit
properties are not ryotwari lands.
b) Just because the suit properties are located in and around
the residential area, it will not lead with the conclusion that the suit
properties would also be used as a house site and that the property ought to
have been valued as a house site.
c) No document has been filed by the defendants to show that
the suit properties are house sites, when the plaintiffs have raised a specific
contention that the suit properties are ryotwari lands.
5. Based on these reasoning, the trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the valuation of the property and the consequent Court fee paid
is also correct.
6. It is not enough for the revision petitioner to contend that the
worth of the property is in crores without showing how the properties can be
construed as house site, when the chitta and patta has been filed to show that
the suit properties are ryotwari lands. Hence, the order passed by the trial
Court did not suffer from illegality or irregularity and therefore, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
7. After this case was heard on merits, the issue regarding
maintainability of revision in respect of matters governing petitions under
Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C., was raised in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1085 to 1088 of 2005 and
1068 of 2006 wherein it has been decided that Revision Petition is not
maintainable. The learned counsel appearing on both sides agreed that the
decision taken in those cases would be applicable to this case also. Therefore,
on the question of maintainability also, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
No costs.
smn2
To
The District Munsif Court,
Ramanathapuram.
