RAMANI Vs. P PARVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have filed the suit for the reliefs of 1) a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property; 2) a declaration that the mortgage deed dated 31.08.2009 executed by Defendants 1 to 6 through their power agent, namely 7th defendant in favour of the 8th defendant and registered as Document No.4195 of 2009 on the file of the District Registrar, Chennai South is not binding on the plaintiffs in so far as the suit property is concerned; 3) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any one claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; 4) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property; and 5) for costs.

(2.) THE suit is resisted by the defendants. In their written statements, besides raising their pleas on the merits of the case, they have also raised a plea that the suit reliefs have been under-valued and the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. Besides taking such a plea, defendants 1 to 6 filed an application in A.No.5835 of 2010 for appointment of a Commissioner or such other officer of the Court to inspect the suit property and determine the market value thereof. Another application was filed by the Defendants 1 to 6 in A.No.5836 of 2010 seeking a direction to the plaintiffs to pay deficit Court fee within such time to be fixed by the Court and to reject the plaint with cost in case of not complying with such a direction.

(3.) NOW this Court has to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the value of the suit property and give a finding on the above said preliminary issue. At the cost of repetition, the preliminary issue is once again reproduced here-under for the sake of convenience: