KARUPPAIAH THEVAR (DIED) Vs. ANANTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree in CMA. No. 2/2009 on the file of Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, against the order in I.A. No. 540/2007 in O.S. No. 252/1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvadanai.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 252/1995 for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for recovery of possession of the suit property, before the District Munsif Court, Tiruvadanai. In the suit, the revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 540/07 under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, for framing of a preliminary issue as to its pecuniary jurisdiction contending that the value of the suit property is more than one crore. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the said petition stating that the suit property being Ryotwari lands, its market value has been determined only on the basis of 30 times of kist and valuing the same as per the above valuation, the court fee has been rightly paid and prayed for trying the suit. However, the trial Court allowed the said petition on 11.02.2009, stating that the suit property if valued properly, the suit would be triable only by the District Court, Ramanathapuram, and accordingly, returned the plaint and such a return was made only after the commencement of trial and after partly cross examining PW1, against which, the respondent/plaintiff filed CMA. No. 2/2009 stating that the Court can return the plaint only under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and in a petition under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, the Court cannot return the plaint. In the above appeal, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 151/10 to decide the maintainability of CMA.No.2/2009, since the order returning the plaint was passed under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, it can be challenged only by way of revision. The respondent/plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 151/11 in CMA. No. 2/2009 praying to receive additional documents to prove that the suit property is classified as Ryotwari lands stating that the additional documents were omitted to be marked before the trial Court. The appellate court heard I.A. No. 151/2010 and I.A. No. 151/2011 along with CMA. No. 2/2009 and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side, has allowed I.A. No. 151/2011 and CMA. No. 2/2009 by dismissing I.A.No.151/2010, against which, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent.