ORDER :

1. The petitioners are plaintiffs 2 to 5 before the Trial Court in O.S.No.314/2009 and are the wife and daughters of plaintiff No.1.

2. Facts in brief:

The case of the plaintiffs is, that deceased plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are husband and wife and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are the unmarried daughters of plaintiffs 1 & 2. The plaintiffs contended that deceased plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the suit schedule property and that the said property was granted to him by the orders of the Land Tribunal. It was contended that deceased plaintiff No.1 was the person of low IQ and susceptible social behaviour, and therefore, plaintiffs 2 to 5 were eking out their livelihood as coolies. It was contended that plaintiffs 1 & 2 approached the defendant to initiate legal proceedings against the sister of deceased plaintiff no.1 to recover possession of the suit schedule property and that the said suit came to be compromised and as a result of the said compromise, deceased plaintiff No.1 relinquished a small portion of the land in favour of his sister. It was contended that after the decreeing of the suit, the defendant raised a demand for his professional charges and demanded Rs.5 lakhs towards the same. It was also contended that the defendant demanded huge sums without reference to the fact of coolie work rendered by plaintiffs 1 & 2 in the property of the defendant and that the defendant taking advantage of his standing as an advocate and also taking advantage of the weakness of plaintiffs 1 & 2, more particularly plaintiff No.1, took them to Sub-Registrar’s office and got executed the sale deed dated 15.05.2008 and no consideration whatsoever was paid by the defendant and that the sale deed was executed under threat and coercion, and fraud was played by the defendant along with his office colleagues. It was also contended that one of defendant’s colleagues was then functioning as a Government Advocate and that the said person taking advantage of his office, brought pressure upon the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and on the threat given by the defendant and his juniors, deceased plaintiff No.1 was forced to execute the sale deed, and hence, they had filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

3. The said suit came to be resisted by the defendant. It was contended by him that deceased plaintiff No.1 was his client and that he had struggled hard to succeed in the judicial proceedings instituted by deceased plaintiff No.1 and that deceased plaintiff No.1 persistently requested him to purchase the property and hence, defendant agreed to purchase the same and the sale deed was executed by the deceased plaintiff out of his own free will and volition and that neither he nor his colleagues played any fraud nor coerced plaintiff No.1 to execute the sale deed. It was contended by the defendant that the institution of the suit is at the instigation of those who are inimically disposed towards the defendant and that even some of the advocates are inimically disposed towards the defendant and hence the present suit was instituted. It was also contended by the defendant that plaintiffs 1 & 2 did not enjoy a cordial relationship and that deceased plaintiff No.1 was tortured by plaintiff No.2 and her relatives and that plaintiff No.2 had abandoned plaintiff No.1 and hence, plaintiff No.1 pleaded the defendant to purchase the suit schedule property.

4. It is submitted that the Trial Court had initially framed five issues, and thereafter, two additional issues came to be framed. The additional issues are as under:

(1) Whether the defendant proves that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

(2) Whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid is insufficient?

5. The additional issues were framed on 09.02.2012 and were treated as preliminary issues as they pertained to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The matter was heard by the Trial Court on 01.09.2016 and orders came to be passed on the same day, whereby the Trial Cou