20 Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the applicant defendant for Date 2017.08.10 143009 IST Reason dismissal of the Original Suit on the ground of payment of inadequate companyrt fee by placing reliance on a wrong provision of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 for brevity, the Act .
847 of 2015 PD , whereby the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the Principal District Signature Not Verified Judge, Dindigul in I.A. No.
847 of 2015 PD .
238/1943.
As per the said agreement an amount of Rs.
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.
621, 705, 2032 and 2133, and held the suit A and B Schedule properties during his life time.
It is claimed that at that time, the 2 nd defendant obtained signatures in blank papers.
The 5th defendant is the father of 3 rd and 6th defendants and father in law of the 2nd defendant.
2 to 6 had created fabricated documents on the basis of the document No.805/91.
The plaintiff agreed to make an agreement for sale as proposed by the 2 nd defendant.
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.
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.
After the purchase, he got the patta transferred in his name and paid the government taxes and enjoyed the properties.
When the plaintiff was making arrangements for partition of the A and B Schedule properties on 10.03.2011, it came to their knowledge that the defendant Nos.
As pleaded, the plaintiffs father died on 07.10.1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and her sister Gowri as his legal heirs.
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.
412/1943 and also B schedule property was purchased by him from one Swaminatha Iyyer on 09.08.1943 through document No.
The defendants filed I.A. No.94 of 2014 in O.S. No.20 of 2014 praying for directing the plaintiff to pay the companyrt fees under Section 40 of the Act failing which to reject the plaint since the plaint was highly undervalued.
214/2004, respectively as null and void and for permanent injunction.
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.
50,000/ was received by the plaintiff and her son, the 1 st defendant and executed an agreement for sell.
On 21.02.1948 through document No.
1469/1948 from Sellammal and, thereafter, changed the patta in his name bearing patta Nos.
596/1948 plaintiffs 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.
It is further companytended that the A and B Schedule properties were maintained by the plaintiff and her sister in the name of their father only.
Dipak Misra, J. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the appellants calling in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order dated 16 th March, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in R.P. MD No.
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.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellants preferred C.R.P. MD No.
94 of 2014 in Original Suit No.
The facts in a nutshell are that the A Schedule property, as appended to the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiffs father, late Raja Chidambara Reddiyar from one Balasundara Iyyer on 12.08.1943 through document No.
