Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2527 (MAD)

K. Sadanandan v. K. Savithri

2018-08-14

M.S.RAMESH

body2018
ORDER : 1. The challenge in the present Revision Petition is with regard to the rejection of the petitioner’s application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. 2. The main grounds raised by the petitioner to establish that the suit is not maintainable is that the plaintiff is claiming rights over the suit properties and in view of Section 213 of Indian Succession Act, unless the Will is probated or granted with the letters of Administration, no right will accrue and hence the suit cannot be maintained. 3. The learned counsel would submit that there is no cause of action for the present suit and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel has raised a further ground stating that in view of Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Suit Fees and Suit Valuation Act, the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and by relying upon the guideline value obtained from the Registration Department for the corresponding year of institution of the suit, the learned counsel would submit that if the suit is properly valued, it cannot be maintained before the Court below in view of its lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, countered the submission given and by relying upon the averments in the plaint submitted that the plaintiff is not claiming the rights only through the Will but also by way of Succession. He would further submit that insofar as Section 213 of Indian Succession Act is concerned, there is no bar for institution of the suit and even assuming that the law mandates, grant of probate or letters of administration, there is no bar for institution of the suit. 6. Insofar as valuation of the suit is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that the valuation is as per the market value of the suit properties and not the guideline value. According to him, as per the market value, the suit has been properly valued and as such there is no infirmity in the side. I have given carefully considerations and the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. In support of the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit cannot be instituted on the basis of the un-probated Will, number of judgments were cited. 8. I have given carefully considerations and the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. In support of the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit cannot be instituted on the basis of the un-probated Will, number of judgments were cited. 8. The counter argument, to such a submission is that the plaintiff is not only claiming right to the Will but also through the line of succession. 9. I have perused the averments made in the plaint and it is indicated therein that the plaintiff does not solely rely upon the Will alone but is also claiming rights by succession. The plaintiff has traced the cause of action from the death of her father leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his only legal heirs. While that being so, it cannot be said that, the plaintiff is claiming rights only through the Will and as such, the question of obtaining the probate or Letters of Administration, during this stage, may not arise for the purpose of rejecting the plaint on the ground that the cause of action has arisen. 10. Insofar as the ground of valuation of the suit is concerned, the reliance on the guideline value by the petitioner herein is countered by the respondents stating that the market value is much lesser than the guideline. It is no doubt true that in case the value exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below, the suit may not be maintainable. Nevertheless, the correct valuation requires to be deliberated and a decision taken thereon, after due opportunities to both the parties. 11. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the market value has drastically come down by the reason behind and that the suit could be maintained before the XVI Additional City Court, Chennai, it could be appropriate to direct the trial Court to take up this issue as a preliminary issue and decide the same. 12. In the light of the above observations, I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality in the order of the Court below in refusing to reject the plaint. 12. In the light of the above observations, I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality in the order of the Court below in refusing to reject the plaint. Nevertheless, the Court below shall take up the issue of valuation of the suit as a preliminary issue and decide on the same at least within the period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.