S BALAMBAL Vs. SUNDARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 29.6.1995, on Checkslip in O.S.No.73 of 1991, wherein the Court below has held that the plaint ought to have been valued under section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and granted time till 14.7.1995 to pay the deficit court-fee.

(2.) PETITIONER-plaintiff filed the suit, O.S.No.73 of 1991, claiming partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the "A" Schedule property and for the attendant reliefs prayed for, which need no elaborate reference. The fact remains that the plaintiff claims a share in the property as the daughter and as Class I heir of late Subramania Dikshithar, said to have died on 14.2.1987. The defendants are other heirs and successors in interest of the original owner. Though the suit was numbered as such, apparently on account of the objection taken in the written statement filed questioning the property and legality of the valuation of the plaint under section 37(2) of the Act as against 37(1) of the Act, the Court below has re-considered the matter and on account of the checkslip put up, passed orders, which are under challenge.

(3.) MR.N.Sankaravadivel, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the decision in Neelavathi v. N.Natarajan, AIR 1980 SC 691, wherein the apex Court held as follows: 'section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act relates to partition suits. Section 37 provides as follows: