N RAMESH Vs. FAERY ESTATES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed for rejection of the suit in O.S.No.952 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff, first respondent is the seventh defendant, respondents 2 to 7 are the defendants 1 to 6 and the respondents 8 & 9 are the defendants 8 & 9 in O.S.No.952 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur. The petitioner filed suit for declaration of three sale deeds dated 15.05.2005 ( at the time of arguments, the date has been mentioned as 18.05.2005), 20.09.2005 and 20.09.2005, bearing document Nos.2972/2005, 5643/2005 and 5462/2005 respectively and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 5 to 8/respondents 6 to 8 & 1 from alienating the properties purchased by them in any manner and mandatory injunction directing the fourth respondent/third defendant to render true and proper accounts in respect of the sale of the suit properties. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 & 9 and petitioner are owners of the suit properties. At the instance of the second respondent, who is elder brother of the petitioner and 9th respondent, they executed power of attorney in favour of fourth respondent to deal with the suit properties. According to the petitioner, fourth respondent fraudulently in collusion with other defendants sold the properties by three sale deeds mentioned in the plaint and did not render true and proper accounts to the petitioner. Only recently, the petitioner came to know about the alienation through three sale deeds. The said sale deeds are not binding on him and he filed suit for the relief as stated above by ignoring the said sale deeds.

(3.) First respondent/seventh defendant filed I.A.No.1811 of 2011 for rejection of plaint on the ground that the petitioner has not valued the suit properties properly and he has not paid the correct Court fee. First respondent stated that the petitioner ought to have valued the suit properties under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and the petitioner ought to have paid the Court fee on the value of property. The petitioner is not correct in valuing the suit and is paying Court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.