Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Ponnusamy vs A.Rajendran on 19 November, 2014

Author: P.R.Shivakumar

Bench: P.R.Shivakumar

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
C.R.P (PD) No.665 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012


A.Ponnusamy				... Petitioner


vs.


A.Rajendran				... Respondent


Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order of the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 25.11.2011 made in I.A.No.374/2011 in O.S.No.3416 of 2004.

		
		For Petitioner	: Mr.L.Mouli


		For Respondent	: Mr.K.Elango





O R D E R

The arguments advanced by Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.K.Elango, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

2. The first defendant in the suit O.S.No.3416/2004 pending on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore is the petitioner in the revision. The suit was filed by late Ammasai Gounder, who was none other than the father of the revision petitioner, for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Pending suit Ammasai Gounder died and his third son A.Rajendran got impleaded as second plaintiff, whereas his other legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 2 to 7.

3. The revision petitioner/first defendant thereafter filed a petition in I.A.No.374/2011 in O.S.No.3416/2004 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint contending that no cause of action has been spelt out in the plaint and also on the ground that the relief sought for in the plaint has been undervalued. The learned trial judge, after hearing both sides, rejected the contention of the revision petitioner and dismissed the said petition by the impugned order dated 25.11.2011. As against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original plaintiff having admitted the execution of a settlement deed dated 06.07.1982 in favour of the first defendant, ought to have prayed for a declaration that the settlement deed was null and void or for setting aide the settlement deed and that absence of such a prayer will make the suit itself not maintainable.

5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit was furnished as Rs.1,00,000/- and court fee had been paid on that basis, during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Ammasai Gounder executed a gift settlement deed dated 16.04.2001 in respect of a portion of the suit property in favour of the second plaintiff in which the value of the subject matter of the said settlement was given as Rs.2,22,000/- and that therefore, the value of the suit should have been altered in consonance with the value reflected in the said settlement deed.

6. So far as the first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the answer given by the learned counsel for the respondent/second plaintiff is that a sham and nominal document is not a transaction at all and the same need not be sought to be declared as null and void and that the prayer made for declaration on the basis of his contention that the said settlement deed dated 06.07.1982 was sham and nominal and no transfer of title took place was enough to maintain the plea for the declaration of title. This court does not find any reason to reject the above said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/second plaintiff.

7. So far as the second contention of the revision petitioner is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/second plaintiff that the value of the relief claimed shall be based on the value of the subject matter which prevailed as on the date of presentation of the plaint and any subsequent increase or decrease in the value shall be disregarded. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/second plaintiff that simply because the value of the property got appreciated and a portion of the suit property came to be settled in favour of the respondent herein/second plaintiff by the original plaintiff himself furnishing the value of the subject matter of the settlement as on the date of settlement deed to be more than the value given in the plaint for the entire property shall not be the ground on which one can ask for the alteration of the value of the relief sought for in the plaint. The above said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also deserves countenance.

8. The learned trial judge does not commit any mistake or error in holding that the prayer for rejection of the plaint for the reasons stated in the petition in I.A.No.374/2011 could not be sustained. The impugned order dismissing I.A.No.374/2011 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint cannot be found fault with and the same is not capable of being interfered with by this court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.11.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes asr To The III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.

asr/-

C.R.P (PD) No.665 of 2012

and M.P.No.1 of 2012 19.11.2014