CHITHRA RAMALINGAM Vs. G SRIDHARANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 7.11.2009, made in the un-numbered suit, in O.S. No. of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, between Chithra Ramalingam, represented by her power agent/husband, L. Ramalingam and G. Sridharane and others.

(2.) The Petitioner in the present civil revision petition had filed a suit for partition and for other reliefs, relating to the joint family property said to be belonging to her and the Respondents 1 to 3, who are said to be her siblings. The learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry, had passed a docket order, dated 7.11.2009, in the un-numbered suit, in O.S.SR. No. 14669 of 2009. The learned Judge had stated that the Plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and for getting separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit properties and for certain other reliefs. Some of the suit properties had been alienated by the first Defendant in the suit, through his power of attorney. The alienees have also been added, as Defendants in the suit. The Plaintiff had valued the relief for partition, under Section 37(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1972, alleging that she is in joint possession of the suit properties. Since the relief of partition is prayed for by the Plaintiff, regarding the alienated properties, as well as the unalienated properties, which are said to be belonging to the family of the Plaintiff, the plaint filed in the un-numbered suit was directed to be returned for the plaint to be valued, in respect of the alienated items of the properties in question, under Section 37(1) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1972. The learned Judge had further directed the Plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees.

(3.) The main question that arose for the consideration of the learned Judge was that when some of the suit properties had been alienated to third party purchasers, and when the purchasers are in possession of the properties in question, and when they are added as parties to the suit, as Defendants, whether the Plaintiff can plead joint possession regarding the alienated properties and pay Court fees, under Section 37(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1972. After referring to the various decisions cited before him, the learned Judge had held that when some of the properties have been alienated to third parties, who are entitled to the possession of the properties, as per law, the Plaintiff, who files the suit for partition, stating that those transactions would not be binding on her, cannot be allowed to contend that she is in joint, physical or constructive possession of the alienated items also and that she would be entitled to pay court fees, only under Section 37(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1972, and regarding the alienated properties she has to value the Court Fees, under Section 37(1) of the the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1972.