ORDER. — This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif of Krishnagiri in O.S. No. 221 of 1974 dated 8th April, 1976. The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the second defendant. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and it was in the occpation of a nephew of her father-in-law. According to her, she could not recover possession inspife of her obtaining a decree. It was stated that the first defendant suggested to her to make appropriate provision in his favour in respect of the suit properties so that his sons would get possession of the properties at least after her lifetime. The plaintiff agreed to this arrangement and she claimed that she affixed her thumb impression on certain blank papers on the basis that the said blank papers would be used for writing a will in the manner contemplated by the parties. However, when the document came to be presented for registration in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, she came to know that the first defendant had written a settlement instead of a will and therefore she refused to register the said document. The document was subsequently compulsorily registered and therefore she came forward with the present suit for declaration of her title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Objection was taken to the Court-fee paid. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,300 and the Court-fee due thereon, was accordingly paid. Objection was raised to the payment of Court-fee in the said manner on the ground that the document itself would show that the market value of the property was Rs. 20,000 that the suit should have been valued at that figure and that the District Munsif’s Court would have no jurisdiction to try the suit. Parties consented to the issues regarding. Court-fee and maintainability of the suit being tried as preliminary issues and the learned District Munsif held after hearing the parties that since the plaintiff pleaded forgery of the document, it should be construed that she was not a party to the docu-ment and that she need not get it set aside. He therefore held that the Court-fee paid was proper and that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. It is against this judgment of the learned District Munsif that the present revisions petition had been filed. The learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submitted that this is a case which would come within the scope of section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act and that accordingly the Court-fee paid would not be proper. The learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff submitted that this is a case where the-document was a forged one and did not and could not pass any title to the properties and that it need not be set aside. The conten-tion urged was that section 40 of the Court-fees Act did not apply to the present case.

3. Section 40 so far as it is material runs as follows:

"In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money-value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future any right, title or interest in money, moveable or immoveable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document" was executed".

The question that arises for consideration is whether this is a case where the suit is for cancellation of a document which purports or operates to create any right or title in immovable property. A perusal of the pleadings would show that it is not a suit for setting aside the particular document under consideration. However, the learned coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document