KARIKALAN Vs. RANGAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.73 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpet.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a 2nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.73 of 2007 and the said suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 8 for partition and other reliefs. The Patta is standing in the name of the 9th respondent/1st defendant and the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner herein. The plaintiffs while initiating the suit proceedings have not paid the appropriate Court fees and they have no right to pay Court fee as per Section 37(2) of the TNCF Act 14, 1955. The petitioner / 2nd defendant has filed an application under Section 12(3) of the TNCF Act 14 of 1955 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Kanchipuram District, Chengalpet, stating that the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs and the Court fee paid by them are wrong and the said issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue.

(3.) Denying the averments in the said application, a counter statement was filed by the 6th respondent which was adopted by the other respondents stating that originally, the suit was filed in the month of January 2007 and it was posted in the list on July 2011. The P.W.1 was examined in chief and then the matter was posted for his cross examination. At that point of time, the 3rd plaintiff had died and the respondents 1 to 8 had taken steps to implead the legal heirs. The 9threspondent/1st defendant had filed an application in I.A.No.662 of 2015 to take the Court fees as preliminary issue and the same was dismissed on merits. The 9th respondent had voluntarily created a fraudulent settlement deed dated 04.08.2011 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to proceed the case as he is an absolute owner of the suit property. It is further stated that the issue regarding the payment of Court fees can be raised before the commencement of trial. The I.A.No.662 of 2015 filed by the 9th respondent seeking to take the Court fee as preliminary issue was already dismissed on merits. Hence, the petitioner being legal heir of the 9th respondent cannot seek for the same remedy.