Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

M. Nelson Babu Petitioner In Both Crps v. K. Kamalesh Babu

Madras High Court
Sep 15, 2009
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

CRP(PD) Nos. 153 & 117/2009, MP. No. 1/2009

Attorney(S)

Mr. T. Lajapathiroy

Mr. N. Dilip Kumar

JUDGES

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.

ACTS

Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act

Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/55.16.

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC respectively.2.

rejected.11. Order 7 Rule 11(d)

Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC

Section 25(d)

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

These Civil Revision Petitions were filed by the 2nd defendant against the order dated 12.6.2008 passed in IA Nos. 280 and 281 of 2008 in OS. No. 99/2009 (also referenced as OS. No. 99/2008 in the body of the opinion) by the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. The petitions challenge the learned trial court's refusal to review its earlier order in IA No. 167/2008 dated 28.1.2008 and the dismissal of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a declaration that Document No. 547/2007 dated 13.2.2009 of Kottaram Sub Registry relating to the suit schedule properties (P10, 20/2, 20/3 of Nagercoil Village, including the whole property as P10-20) is non est, unenforceable and invalid, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon, trespassing on, or making any construction in the suit schedule property.

Material procedural milestones and related facts (as stated in the opinion):

  • The plaintiffs (two brothers) reside in the USA and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Dr. R. Shylaja (their niece, daughter of their brother K. Ravikumar).
  • Dr. R. Shylaja filed IA No. 167/2008 in OS No. 99/2008 to accept the power deed and represent the plaintiffs; that application was allowed on 28.1.2008.
  • The petitioner (2nd defendant) filed IA No. 281/2008 seeking review of the order allowing the power deed; that review petition was dismissed by order dated 12.6.2008 (challenge before CRP No. 117/2008).
  • The petitioner also filed IA No. 280/2008 seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds including alleged identity of cause with OS No. 446/2007 (a previously pending suit) and under-valuation / incorrect court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act; that petition was dismissed (challenge before CRP No. 153/2009).
  • The trial court dismissed the petitions, and the present civil revisions seek to upset those dismissals.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the trial court's order accepting the Power of Attorney in favour of Dr. R. Shylaja (IA No. 167/2008) was reviewable by the petitioner (a defendant) and whether the acceptance was vitiated by competing earlier power deeds.
  2. Whether the plaint in OS. No. 99/2008 was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that an earlier suit (OS. No. 446/2007) on identical facts and reliefs was pending.
  3. Whether the plaint was undervalued and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs was incorrect so as to require rejection of the plaint under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation provisions (specifically Section 25(d) and Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Act).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Dr. R. Shylaja is not the valid Power Agent of the plaintiffs; earlier power deeds in favour of others (including Arul Prakasam and Stella/ Mary Stella Dhas) existed and were not cancelled in a manner that permitted the new appointment, making the appointment mala fide and false.
  • No opportunity was given to the petitioner before the court accepted the Power of Attorney, rendering the acceptance order unsustainable.
  • The suit in OS. No. 99/2008 is barred because it advances the same grounds and seeks the same reliefs as OS. No. 446/2007, which was pending and allegedly deliberately suppressed by the plaintiffs; therefore, the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
  • The plaint is undervalued and the court fee paid is incorrect under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (relying on Section 25(d) and alleging that Section 40 might apply), causing revenue loss to the State and warranting rejection of the plaint.

Respondents'/Plaintiffs' Arguments (as set out in the counter)

  • The 2nd plaintiff, K. Vijayakumar, initially appointed Mary Stella Dhas by document No. 397/2002, later cancelled that power and appointed Dr. Arul Prakasam by power deed dated 11.11.2005 (registered 26.4.2006); when the agent could not effectively supervise the property, that power was cancelled and Dr. R. Shylaja was appointed by two power deeds dated 5.10.2007 and 16.11.2007 (registered as Document No. 107/2007 on 26.11.2007).
  • The 1st plaintiff, K. Kamalesh Babu, had earlier appointed Mary Stella Dhas by document No. 463/1996 and subsequently appointed Dr. R. Shylaja as his power agent on 15.10.2007 (registered as Document No. 92/2007 on 18.10.2007).
  • The previous power agents did not object to the appointment of Dr. R. Shylaja and, according to the respondents, had consented; there was no rival power claim before the court.
  • The power agents acted according to the power deeds and there was no material to show mala fide intention in the appointment of Dr. R. Shylaja.
  • Mary Stella Dhas was arrayed as a defendant in OS No. 220/2008 in her personal capacity and filed a written statement; that fact does not demonstrate that she continued as a power agent for the plaintiffs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
K. Palaniswamy and another v. S.B. Subramani and another [2007 1 CTC 300 = 2007 2 L.W 389] Holds that when plaintiffs are not parties to the main sale deed or any other deed, they are not required to pay court fees under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act; payment under Section 25(d) is proper. The court relied on this authority to conclude that, since the plaintiffs are not parties to the main deed, the valuation and court fee paid under Section 25(d) were proper and did not warrant rejection of the plaint.
Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam [2006-4-MLJ-924 = 2006 4 L.W 176] Same legal proposition: plaintiffs not party to main sale deed need not pay court fees under Section 40(1); payment under Section 25(d) is appropriate. The court applied this precedent alongside K. Palaniswamy to uphold the trial court's finding that the suit was rightly valued and the court fee correctly paid.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in distinct strands corresponding to the petitioner's challenges:

  1. Acceptance of Power of Attorney and Reviewability:

    The court observed that the plaintiffs, residing abroad, had executed valid power deeds appointing Dr. R. Shylaja, and the trial court had accepted that power by its order dated 28.1.2008. The court emphasized that a defendant to the suit (the petitioner) has no locus standi to oppose the court's acceptance of a power of attorney which is a matter primarily between the principal and agent and the court. The petitioner would not be prejudiced by acceptance of the power and any doubts regarding the validity or scope of the power could be examined at trial. In short, the order accepting the Power of Attorney did not merit review and the trial court's refusal to review the acceptance was held to be proper.

  2. Application of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC (Rejection of Plaint):

    The court explained the limited and specific scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d): to reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, the bar must be apparent from the averments in the plaint alone. No extraneous material or evidence can be considered at that stage; the determination must be drawn from the plaint's own averments without addition or subtraction.

    The court compared the earlier suit OS. No. 446/2007 with the present suit OS. No. 99/2008. Although both suits concern the same properties, the court found the reliefs claimed in the two suits to be different in substance: OS. No. 446/2007 sought declaration of a pathway and related mandatory reliefs regarding removal of certain constructions and injunctions specific to B-Schedule property, whereas OS. No. 99/2008 seeks a declaration that a particular document is non est and an injunction restraining encroachment on P10-20/2, 20/3. Because the reliefs and cause of action are different, the suits could not be characterized as identical for the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d).

    Moreover, the court noted that whether the claimed reliefs could ultimately be granted is a question of fact to be determined at trial; consequently, the petition to reject the plaint at the preliminary stage involved questions inappropriate for resolution under Order 7 Rule 11. For these reasons, the trial court's dismissal of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 was not improper or perverse.

  3. Valuation of Suit and Court Fee (Section 25(d) vs Section 40):

    The court addressed the petitioner's contention regarding under-valuation and incorrect court fee payment. The court reiterated the principle that, for determining the value for court-fee purposes, only the averments in the plaint are relevant. The suit sought declaration that the deed executed by the defendants is non est and invalid; the plaintiffs are not parties to that deed. Applying the precedents cited (K. Palaniswamy and Siddha Construction), the court held that Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act did not apply where plaintiffs are not parties to the main deed and that payment under Section 25(d) was appropriate in this factual matrix.

    On the basis of the plaint's averments and the cited authorities, the court concluded that the trial court rightly held that the suit had been properly valued and the correct court fee had been paid.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Civil Revision Petitions are DISMISSED.

Direct consequences and implications:

  • The trial court's orders (accepting the Power of Attorney in IA No. 167/2008 and dismissing the petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 and for rejection of the plaint in IA Nos. 280 and 281 of 2008) are upheld.
  • The court found no merit in the petitioner's challenges regarding locus to contest the power deed, identity of suits for purposes of Order 7 Rule 11(d), or undervaluation/court fee—thus no relief was granted to the petitioner.
  • No costs were awarded and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, as recorded in the operative part of the opinion.
  • The opinion does not purport to lay down any new broad legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities on court-fee valuation and the settled scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d); its practical effect is to affirm the trial court's factual and interlocutory assessments in this matter.

Result recorded in the opinion: "In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed."

Show all summary ...

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the 2nd defendant against the order dated 12.6.2008 passed in IA. Nos. 280 and 281 of 2008 in OS. No. 99/2009 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, declining to review the order passed in IA. No. 167/2008 dated 28.1.2008 and dismissing the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC respectively.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the above said suit to declare that the Document No. 547/2007 dated 13.2.2009 of Kottaram Sub Registry relating to the suit schedule properties in P10, 20/2, 20/3 of Nagercoil Village including the whole of the property as P10-20 in the document as non est, unenforceable and in valid and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching or trespassing or making any construction in the suit schedule property.

3. For better appreciation, few facts which are essential for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions are stated below:—

One late Kunjan Nadar had five sons viz. (1) Ravikumar, (2) Madhukumar, (3) K.T Dhas, (4) K.E Kamalesh Babu (1st plaintiff) and (5) Dr. K. Vijayakumar (2nd plaintiff). Since the plaintiffs are residing in USA, they had executed a Power of Attorney in favour Dr. R. Shylaja who is the daughter of K. Ravikumar, the brother of the plaintiffs. The Power Agent namely Dr. R. Shylaja had filed an application in IA. No. 167/2008 in OS. No. 99/2008 to accept the power deed and permit her to represent her principals and the same had been allowed on 28.1.2008 Subsequently, the suit has been numbered as OS. No. 99/2008. The petitioner herein had filed a petition in IA. No. 281/2008 to review the said order and the same had been dismissed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil by order dated 12.6.2008 as against which the petitioner has preferred CRP. No. 117/2008.

4. The petitioner had filed another application in IA. No. 280/2008 to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit in OS. No. 99/2008 is filed on identical grounds for the same relief made in OS. No. 446/2007 and the pendency of the suit in OS. No. 446/2007 has been deliberately suppressed by the plaintiffs and hence, the same is barred under law. Further, the respondents/plaintiffs have under valued the claim and proper court fee has not been paid causing revenue loss to the State and it ought not to have been allowed under Section 25(d) and the plaint has to be rejected for under valuation and improper payment of court fee. The court below rejected his contention and dismissed the petition, as against which the petitioner has filed CRP. No. 153/2009.

5. Mr. T. Lajapathiroy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Dr. R. Shylaja is not the Power Agent of the plaintiffs and she has no locus standi to file the suit in OS. NO. 99/2008. On 29.10.2007 one Arulprakasam has filed WP. No. 9669/207 before this court claiming to be the Power of Attorney of K. Vijayakumar and one Stella Dhas represented as Power of Attorney of K. Kamalesh Babu in the suits in OS. No. 153/2002 and 35/2006 and in the said facts without cancelling the prior Power of Attorney, no Power could be granted to Dr. R. Shylaja and the claim of Dr. R. Shylaja as Power of Attorney is mala fide and false. He would further submit that no opportunity was given to him before accepting the Power of Attorney and the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif is unsustainable.

6. It is seen from the counter filed by the respondents that K. Vijayakumar (2nd plaintiff) had appointed one Mary Stella Dhas, w/o late K.T Dhas (another son of late Kunjan nadar) as his Power of Attorney agent by document No. 397/2002 dated 1.6.2002 and subsequently the said Power Deed had been cancelled and he had appointed Dr. Arul Prakasam a retired school Head Master as his Power of Attorney under Power deed dated 11.11.2005 registered with the District Registrar on 26.4.2006 Both the principal and the Agent found it difficult, as Agent could not travel to Nagercoil every day and supervise the property, his power was cancelled and subsequently by means of two power deeds dated 5.10.2007 and 16.11.2007 registered with the District Registrar in No. 107/2007 on 26.11.2007 the present Power of Attorney Agent Dr. R. Shylaja has been appointed.

7. Like wise, the 1st plaintiff K. Kamalesh Babu originally had appointed Mary Stella Dhas as his Power Agent vide document No. 463/1996 dated 12.8.1996 and since she could not follow up with the developments in relation to the suit property, the present Power of Attorney has been appointed as his Power Agent on 15.10.2007 and the same is registered in Document No. 92/2007 with the District Registrar on 18.10.2007 The previous power agents have not objected to with regard to the appointment of Dr. R. Shylaja and there is no rival power claim. It is the case of the respondents that they have consented to the appointment of Dr. R. Shylaja.

8. Further the power agents have acted in accordance with the power deeds and in the absence of any material to show or otherwise, it cannot be presumed that the appointment of Dr. R. Shylaja is with mala fide intention. It could be seen that Mary Stella Dhas has been arrayed as the defendant in OS No. 220/2008 in her personal capacity as one of the family members and accordingly, she has filed a written statement. It cannot be said that she has done so as a Power Agent of K. Vijayakumar.

9. As rightly pointed out by the court below the petitioner who is a defendant in the suit has no locus standi to oppose any power accepted by the court and it is a matter between the principal and the agent and the power agent and the court. The petitioner would not be prejudiced in any manner in the court accepting the power of attorney of the plaintiffs to represent on behalf of them. If there is any doubt in that regard, it is for the respondents/plaintiffs to clarify it at the time of trial and on the said ground the order accepting the Power of Attorney cannot be reviewed. The court below has rightly dismissed the said petition and it does not warrant interference.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner put forth another submission that the suit is barred under law as the suit in OS. NO. 99/2008 is on the same identical facts and reliefs that has been sought for in OS.No 446/2007 which is still pending and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

11. Order 7 Rule 11(d) has limited application. For its applicability, it must be shown that the present suit is barred under law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. What would be the relevant for invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC are the averments made in the plaint and for that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. For the purpose of invoking the said provision, no amount of evidence can be looked into.

12. The suit in OS. No. 446/2007 has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of pathway with reference to B-Schedule property i.e Rs. P10-21/3 in Nagercoil Village for free ingress and egress of the plaintiffs, their men, servants without any hindrance and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 their men and servants from encroaching or constructing or installing any new construction within B and A Schedule properties and mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to remove TASMAC Bar and the construction of the 4th defendant on the face of B-Schedule property within a specified time fixed by the court failing which the permission is sought for to demolish the construction by the plaintiffs themselves. Whereas the present suit in OS. No. 99/2008 is filed to declare the document dated 13.2.2007 relating to the suit property in P10-20/2, 20/3 of the Nagercoil Village as non est and unenforceable. Incidentally, it is claimed that it belongs to the plaintiffs. Besides that, the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching, trespassing or making any construction is sought for.

13. Though the properties are one and the same in those two suits, but the reliefs claimed are totally different and it cannot be said that both the suits are identical and one and the same in relation to the facts and cause of action. Whether the reliefs claimed could be granted is essentially a question of fact and can be gone into only at the stage of trial.

14. The contentions raised for rejection of the plaint in the present suit involves various questions, which could not be considered at the stage of the proceedings under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and therefore, the order of the trial court dismissing the petition filed for rejection of the plaint cannot be said to be improper or perverse.

15. Yet another contention was put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is not correct and the plaint has to be rejected. The suit is filed for declaration that the deed executed by the defendants in relation to the whole properties is non est, unenforceable and invalid. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not parties to the said deed and in such case, the relief of declaration would not fall under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. For deciding the value of the court fee payable by the plaintiff, the averments in the plaint alone are to be considered and in the present case, the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/55.

16. In the cases of K. Palaniswamy and another v. S.B Subramani and another [2007 1 CTC 300=2007 2 L.W 389] and Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam [2006-4-MLJ-924=2006 4 L.W 176], it is categorically held by this court that when the plaintiffs are not parties to the main sale deed or any other deed, they need not pay court fees under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the payment of court fee under Section 25(d) is proper.

17. In the light of averments made in the plaint and the petition made thereon, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit has been rightly valued and the court fee paid is proper. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these Civil Revision Petitions and consequently, they are liable to be dismissed.

18. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.

VCJ/VCS

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x