J. Vasanthi vs N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. By Lrs.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the “A Schedule property”, as appended to the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff’s father, late Raja Chidambara Reddiyar from one Balasundara Iyyer on 12.08.1943 through document No. 412/1943 and also “B schedule property” was purchased by him from one Swaminatha Iyyer on 09.08.1943 through document No. 238/1943. After the purchase, he got the patta transferred in his name and paid the government taxes and enjoyed the properties. On 21.02.1948 through document No. 596/1948 plaintiff’s father made a sale of the A and B Schedule properties along with some other properties in favour of Sellammal w/o Rangoon Krishnasamy Reddiyar. As averred in the plaint, the A and B schedule properties and other properties which were sold, were again purchased by the father of the plaintiff on 19.04.1948 through document No. 1469/1948 from Sellammal and, thereafter, changed the patta in his name bearing patta Nos. 621, 705, 2032 and 2133, and held the suit A and B Schedule properties during 3 his life time. As pleaded, the plaintiff’s father died on 07.10.1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and her sister Gowri as his legal heirs. The 1st defendant is the son of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant and the 4th defendant is their son. The 5th defendant is the father of 3 rd and 6th defendants and father-in-law of the 2nd defendant. The suit was basically filed for seeking declaration that the sale deeds dated 30.08.1991, 23.03.1993, 04.01.1994, 10.06.2002 and 11.03.2004 as per document Nos. Document Nos.922/1991, Document No.330/1993, Document No.2395/1994, Document No.1239/2002 and Document No. 214/2004, respectively as null and void and for permanent injunction.

5. The defendants filed I.A. No.94 of 2014 in O.S. No.20 of 2014 praying for directing the plaintiff to pay the court fees 5 under Section 40 of the Act failing which to reject the plaint since the plaint was highly undervalued. The said application for rejection of the plaint preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, as mentioned hereinbefore. The trial Judge, while dismissing the I.A., relied upon the decisions in G. Seethadevi v. R. Govindaraj & Ors.1 , P. Thillai Selvan v. Shyna Paul & Anr.2, and Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. Rep. By its Power Agent, Anjay Sharma, No.32 Guruswamy Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600031 v. M. Shanmugam & Ors.3. Be it clarified that the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the case, i.e., on 15.01.2015, and her legal heirs have been brought on record.

15. In K. Palaniswamy and another v. S.B. Subramani and another6, the learned single Judge took note of the facts that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaring the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of the second and third defendants as null and void and unenforceable and would not bind the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction and an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was filed as proper court fee had not been paid and the suit was not properly valued and it de- served to be rejected. In the said case, the second respon- dent was the power of attorney of the first respondent and af- ter revocation of power of attorney, he had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants. The High Court took note of the fact that when the first respondent was not a party to the document, the relief sought for in the suit would not come under Section 40 of the Act and accordingly, dismissed the civil revision.

28. In the ultimate anlaysis, we arrive at the conclusion that the appeal is to be allowed, the impugned orders passed by the trial court and the High Court, being unsustainable 25 are to be set aside and we so direct. The trial court is directed to grant three months time to the plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

August 10, 2017.