S.THANIKACHALAM Vs. E.RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.3291 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, Chennai (Fast Track Court II).

(2.) FOR convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) PER contra, D1 filed the written statement resisting the suit on the main ground that as per Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs, who happened to be female members, cannot file the suit for partition for residential house under the occupation of male members, namely, the defendants herein. The said Sambandam died in the year 1982, whereas, the suit was filed in the year 2002 and by that time, the plaintiffs have lost their right over it by ouster also. The Court fee paid under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was inadequate, as the suit ought to have been valued under Section 37(1) of the Act and ad valorem Court fee ought to have been paid. Accordingly, they would pray for the dismissal of the suit.