Savithri Naidu vs R.Santhosh

Court
Madras High Court

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012288342026}
AND
CMP NO. 29150 OF 2026
& CMP NO. 29143 OF 2026
1. Savithri Naidu
W/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at Anugraha,
No.442 (Old No. 1334),
Avinashi Rad, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore-004.
2. Vikrma R.Naidu
S/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at Anugraha,
No.442 (Old No. 1334),
Avinashi Rad, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore-004.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. R.Santhosh
S/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at No.9, Park Residency,
ATT Colony, Coimbatore-18.
2. R.Vimala
W/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at No.9, Park Residency,
ATT Colony, Coimbatore-18.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
CRP No. 6770 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012288332026}
1. Savithri Naidu
W/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at Anugraha,
No.442 (Old No. 1334),
Avinashi Rad, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore-004.
2. Vikrma R.Naidu
S/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at Anugraha,
No.442 (Old No. 1334),
Avinashi Rad, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore-004.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. R. Santhosh
S/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at No.9, Park Residency,
ATT Colony, Coimbatore-18.
2. R.Vimala
W/o. Late V Radhakrishnan,
Res. at No.9, Park Residency,
ATT Colony, Coimbatore-18.
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 6768 of 2026
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed in IA No.6 of
2026 in OS No.379 of 2013 by the learned V Additional District Judge,
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
Coimbatore and 1st respondent be directed to pay court fee at the rate of 7.5
percent on Rs.2,15,00,000/-
CRP No. 6770 of 2026
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to call for records in IA No.2 of 2026 in OS No.24 of 2008 on the file of
the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore set aside the fair and decretal order
dated 13.08.2026 passed therein.
For Petitioner(s):
in both CRPs
Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for
Vaibhav Rangarajan Venkatesh
COMMON ORDER
The issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are common and
hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common
order.
st
2.The 1 respondent/plaintiff filed the suits in O.S.No.24 of 2008 and
O.S.No.379 of 2013, seeking for the relief of declaration and recovery of
possession.
3.The petitioners, who are the defendants, questioned the valuation of the
suits and the Court fees paid and earlier filed an application for the appointment
of an Advocate Commissioner to assess the market value of the suit property.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
This application came to be dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the
same, CRP No.1357 of 2020 came to be filed before this Court. This Civil
Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms:
13. The reading of the affidavit filed in support of petition by the
petitioner seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner would indicate that
there is no serious dispute with regard to the plaintiff-s title of the suit
property. The dispute is only with regard to the valuation of the suit. In such
circumstances, the parties are at liberty to lead evidence to prove the actual
market value of the suit property and the same can be decided at the time of
final disposal. It is always open to the petitioner to examine witnesses and lead
evidence regarding the valuation of the suit property. The issue regarding the
correct market value of suit property requires evidence. Hence, the said issue
is to be decided by the Court below at the time of final disposal, as observed in
the impugned order. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court
below. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
4.After the above order was passed, an application was filed for filing an
additional written statement and the same came to be allowed and the additional
written statement was also filed, wherein the specific issue regarding the
valuation and the Court fees was also raised.
5.At this juncture, interlocutory applications came to be filed before the
Court below to take up the issue regarding the valuation and payment of Court
fees as a preliminary issue under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. These applications came to be dismissed by the
Court below and aggrieved by the same, these Civil Revision Petitions have
been filed before this Court.
6.The Court below seems to have dismissed the applications mainly on
the ground that, even on an earlier occasion, a similar attempt was made to
question the valuation of the suits and the Court fees paid, but the petitioners
failed in the said attempt and hence, they are attempting to revive the same issue
once again by filing the present applications.
7.Even when the earlier Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by this
Court, this Court made it clear that the issue regarding the correct market value
of the suit property requires recording of evidence and that the same can be
decided by the Court below at the time of final disposal. In view of the same, as
rightly held by the Court below, this issue cannot be decided as a preliminary
issue and the issue that has been raised by the petitioners/defendants regarding
the valuation of the property and payment of the Court fees can be taken up as
one of the issues in the suit and decided based on the evidence adduced by both
sides. This liberty was granted earlier and the same is once again reiterated in
the present Civil Revision Petitions. In view of the same, the petitioners cannot
have any further grievance.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
8.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of in the
above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SSR
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
To
The V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
SSR
CRP Nos. 6768 & 6770 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 29150 OF 2026
& CMP NO. 29143 OF 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )