Madras High Court
CRP/1851/2023 of NAGARAJAN Vs THILLAI GOVINDARAJAN on 6 October 2026
CRP No. 1851 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 1851 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA010990752023}
AND
CMP NO. 11890 OF 2023
Nagarajan
S/o. Subramanian, for himself and representing the residents of Chidambaram, State Bank Colony, No.5, State Bank Colony, Ellaimman Koil Street, Chidambaram 608 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Thillai Govindarajan
S/o. Murugesan
2. S.Muthukumaran
S/o. Sambandam Pillai
3. R.Rajaram
S/o. Rengasamy
4. R.Govindaraju Pillai
S/o. Rathinam Pillai
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No. 115 of 2022 in O.S.No. 11 of 2018 dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.
CRP No. 1851 of 2023
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondent(s):
R1-Served -No appearance
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This Civil Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No. 115 of 2022 in O.S.No. 11 of 2018 dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram, wherein the application filed by the petitioners / plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC r/w Section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, seeking to frame an additional issue came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below. The 1st respondent has been served with notice and the name of the 1st respondent has already been printed in the cause list. The notices sent to the respondents 2 to 4 have been returned unserved. Since the 1st respondent sufficiently represents the interest of all the respondents as well, notice to the respondents 2 to 4 is dispensed with.
3. The petitioner filed the suit in OS No.11 of 2018 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property, dealing with vehicles in the B schedule property or preventing the
CRP No. 1851 of 2023
ingress and egress of the plaintiff into the B schedule property. The petitioner also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction, compound wall or fence in the B schedule property.
4. The written submissions were filed and the issues were framed by the Trial Court on 17.04.2021.
5. The petitioner filed IA No.115 of 2022 seeking to frame the following additional issue:- “whether the plead of adverse possession has not been properly valued and proper Court fees has not been paid as per Section 25(cc) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955?
6. The application was filed on the ground that the defendants had raised the plea of adverse possession in their written statement and that an issue in this regard had also been framed by the Trial Court on 17.04.2021. According to the petitioner, once the defendant raises a plea of adverse possession, the same has to be treated as a counter claim and Court fee has to be paid on the market value of the immovable property. To that effect, the additional issue was sought to be brought in by the petitioner.
7. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the counter claim made by the defendant is only as against the Government and not against the petitioner.
CRP No. 1851 of 2023
8. If the reasoning given by the Court below is taken to its logical end, there was no need for the Court below to even frame an issue as to whether the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession, since according to the Court below, it is not claimed as against the plaintiff. The very fact that the Court below had framed an issue as to whether the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession, obviously, the Court below has to frame an additional issue sought for by the petitioner since the claim of adverse possession has to be treated as a counter claim. Hence, the 2nd issue already framed by the Court below can be considered along with the additional issue and it can be answered.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No. 115 of 2022 in O.S.No. 11 of 2018 dated 30.11.2022, is hereby set-aside and this Civil Revision petition stands allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of OS No.11 of 2018 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To, The Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.
CRP No. 1851 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 1851 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 11890 OF 2023 06-10-2026