Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 859 (MAD)

Rahmath Beevi v. Peer Mohammedammal Beevi

2004-07-09

V.KANAGARAJ

body2004
Judgment :- The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 3.12.2003 made in I.A.No.566 of 2002 in O.S.No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. 2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, what could be assessed is that the petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, praying for separate possession of 6/20 share in the schedule property and for costs. The suit was decreed as prayed for. 3. It further comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed a petition in I.A.No.566 of 2002 to fix the value of his 6/20 shares in the schedule property and to direct the petitioner herein to register the sale deed in favour of the defendant under Section 4 of the Indian Partition Act and under section 151 CPC. In that petition, the learned Judge has appointed a Commissioner and assessed the market value of 6/20 shares as Rs.56934/-. The learned Judge allowed the petition and directed the revision petitioner to receive Rs.56,934/- from the respondent herein for 6/20 shares and register the sale deed. As against the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition on grounds such as that, the court below has erred in fixing the value of the building without giving sufficient opportunity to the respondent to led evidence on her behalf on the market value of the area which fetches Rs.3 lakhs and above per cent approximately; that the Commissioner was appointed by the trial court and the method adopted by the Commissioner and accepted by the trial court to fix the value on the basis of the guideline value is against the law declared by the Apex Court and therefore, it is void. 4.During arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a decision reported in RAGHUBAN NARAIN vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 465) wherein it has been held as follows:- " Market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under Section 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired." 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and with the assistance of AE and PWD, the value of the property, following the guideline value of Sub Registrar and other records, was fixed at Rs.56,934/- and accordingly, the respondent has also deposited the amount even on 11.12.2003 and only to drag on the proceedings, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel would also submit that subsequent to the order of the court below, the respondent has also deposited non judicial stamp papers to the value of Rs.4500/- and the sale deed was also engraved and signed by the learned Judge. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent would pray to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition. 6. The lower Court having considered these facts and circumstances pleaded by parties in the light of the legality on the subject and having given due opportunity for both parties to be heard and tracing the entire pleadings before it, and having its own discussion on the subject, would arrive at a definite conclusion that the total value of the building is 18,99,779/- and the value of 6/20 shares is Rs.56,934/- and hence, ordered the revision petitioner to receive the said amount and register the sale deed in favour of the respondent. 7.In consideration of the facts pleaded and having regard to all the materials placed on record, since it comes to be known from the order of the court below that it has not followed the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra while fixing the market value which was defined therein as "the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property..." and as the petitioner herein is stiffly opposing norms adopted by the court below in fixation of market value of the property, this Court is of the view that the court below has erred in fixing the market value of the property. Therefore following the dictum of law enunciated in the above judgment of the Supreme Court, this matter deserves to be allowed and remitted back to the court below for proper appreciation of all the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the above judgment. Hence, the following order. In result, (i)The above Civil Revision Petition is allowed. (ii)The order of the court below dated 3.12.2003 made in I.A.NO.566 of 2002 in O.S.NO.4 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi is set aside. (iii)The matter is remitted back to the Court of Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi for proper consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to law enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject in the judgment reported in AIR 1967 SC 465 . (iv) however, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs; (v) consequently, C.M.P.NO.693 of 2004 & VCMP.No.9586 of 2004 are also closed.