IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P. No. 384 of 2009 and C.M.P.No.1 of 2009 V. Gowri Ammal .. Petitioner Versus 1. Veerasamy Reddiar 2. Perumal Reddiar .. Respondents The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 08.04.2008 made in I.A.No.79 of 2008 in O.S.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurantakam. For Petitioner : M/s. M. Ramachandran For Respondents : Mr. N. Nagu Sah ORDER The unsuccessful petitioner in I.A.No.79 of 2008 in O.S.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The suit in O.S.No.276 of 2006 was preferred by the first respondent against the petitioner praying for a decree of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the suit property. 3. In the plaint in O.S.No.276 of 2006, it was the case of the first respondent that originally the entire suit property in S.No.99/2 belonged to one Ayyappa Reddiar, s/o. Krishnappa Reddiar. The respondents are none other than the children of Krishnappa Reddiar. The said Ayyappa Reddiar had three sons namely Krishnaswamy Reddy, Veeraswami Reddy and Perumal Reddy and there was a partition in the family as evidenced by document dated 2.12.1959, in and by which the suit property was allotted to the share of the respondents. Even though the respondents have sold some of the items of property to the revision petitioner. However, the suit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property was not the subject matter of such sale. During the year 2005, the revision petitioner requested the respondents to put up a small room of about 100 sq.ft in the suit property on undertaking to vacate as and when a demand to the effect was made by the respondents. Accordingly, such permission was granted. However, the revision petitioner refused to vacate the property in spite of revoking the permission by the respondents which made the first respondent to file the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. 4. The revision petitioner on appearance before the trial Court filed an application in I.A.No.79 of 2008 to reject the plaint. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in IA.No.79 of 2008 it was the case of the petitioner that the suit property has been in his possession and enjoyment and the same was evident by the averments as contained in the plaint itself. According to the revision petitioner, there was no cause of action for the respondent to file a suit against her and as such the plaint has to be rejected. It was also the contention of the revision petitioner that the court fee paid was not correct and the first respondent had to pay the court fee on market value of the property. 6. The application was opposed by the first respondent by filing counter. 7. The trial Judge on a careful consideration of the matter rejected the application and aggrieved by the same the unsuccessful petitioner has filed this revision. 8. The petitioner has filed the application in I.A.No 79 of 2008 with a prayer to reject the plaint on the basis that the very prayer made in the suit to remove the superstructure clearly shows that the superstructure was built by him. According to the revision petitioner, there were no documents to substantiate the contentions raised in the plaint and as such the plaint was liable to be rejected. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application, I am of the view that the averments as contained in the said affidavit is not sufficient to reject the plaint. It is for the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the basis of the averments of the nature as contended in the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner. The question of payment of court fee is also an issue to be decided by the trial Court after giving opportunity to both the parties. The learned Judge has considered the issue in extenso and arrived at a correct conclusion that the application has to be rejected. I do not find any error or illegality in the said order warranting interference by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To The District Munsif Court, Madurantakam. 1 cc To Mr.N.Nagu Sah, Advocate, SR.23654. 1 cc To Mr.M.Ramachandran, Advocate, SR.23455. C.R.P. No. 384 of 2009 and C.M.P.No.1 of 2009 KA(CO) RVL 21.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/