G PAULRAJ Vs. S RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.726 of 2014 in O.S.No.125 of 2007 on 01.07.2016 by the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai. The relief sought for in the above said I.A.No.726 of 2014 is to reject the plaint which was filed for the relief of partition.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that he is the 1st Defendant in the aforesaid suit and the Plaintiff, who is his elder sister, filed the suit for partition after the lapse of nearly 40 years from the date of the registered deed of partition dated 23.06.1958. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent/Plaintiff has admitted that she was excluded without allotted any share in the ancestral properties even in the registered partition deed dated 23.06.1958 itself. So, the Plaintiff had been ousted from the joint family property. Hence, the filing of the suit in the year 2007 is barred by limitation as contemplated and Article 110 of the Limitation Act. To substantiate his case, the Revision Petitioner filed Exs.P-1 to P-7 in the interim petition before the learned trial Court, but they were not considered in its veracity.

(3.) The further contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the value of the Plaint is wrongly calculated and thereby the valuation of the plaint under Section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act is not correct and the plaint ought to have been valued under Section 37(1) of the Court Fee Act and thereby, he prays that the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.