Discussion on the question whether relief is capable of valuation is irrelevant where the suit is governed by Section 25(d) of the 1955 Act.

The 7th and 8th defendants are the revision petitioners herein, who have filed this revision petition against the order of dismissal of the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in I.A. No. 12952 of 2002 in O.S. No. 1540 of 1997 by the learned IIIrd Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the above said suit i.e., O.S. No. 1540 of 1997 for the below mentioned reliefs.

a) for a declaration to declare that the first plaintiff is the co-founder of the Social Welfare Centre Johan Maasbach World Mission, along with the second defendant at No.10 (Old No.40), Arcot Road, Saligramam, Madras-93;

b) for a declaration that the first plaintiff and his family members particularly the second plaintiff herein, are entitled to administer the Social Welfare Centre Johan Maasbach World Mission at No.10 (Old No.40), Arcot Road, Saligramam, Madras-93 and its properties, scheduled in the plaint;

c) for a declaration that the registration of the society in the name and style of Social Welfare Centre Johan Maasbach World Mission, dated 21-02-1976 (S.No.33/76) is null and void;

d) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 5 to 9, their agents and their men, for interfering with the affairs of the Social Welfare Centre Johan Maasbach World Mission, at No.10 (Old No.40), Arcot Road, Saligramam, Madras-93 and for costs and other reliefs

3. The petitioners herein have filed I.A. No. 12952 of 2002 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the relief (b) and (c) sought for in the suit relates to declaration with respect to suit schedule mentioned immovable properties and it's value is not less than Rs.3,00,00,000/- and the court fee payable thereon would be Rs.1,50,00,000/- being 50% of the value thereof; whereas, the respondents have filed the suit, valuing prayer (b) and (c) of the suit at Rs.400/- each and in view of payment of insufficient court fee, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The trial court, after giving opportunity to both the sides dismissed the said I.A. No. 12952 of 2002.

4. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial court erred in dismissing the application on the erroneous ground that the reliefs claimed in the suit were incalculable valuation and the valuation adopted and court fee paid by the respondents is correct; that the respondents are not office bearers of the society, while so, for claiming administration of the society and its properties, the respondents ought to have paid court fee to the extent of 50% of the value of the property; that the plaint is liable to be rejected for non-payment of proper court fee; though the prayer appears in respect of intangible right, it is nothing but claiming right in immovable property; that the trial court valued the property at Rs.15,08,33,000/- but has erroneously held that payment of court fee paid under Section 25 (d) of the Court Fee Act is correct, and in view of the fact that the property values more than Rs.10,00,00,000/-, the trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and this fact was also lost sight of by the trial court. In support of this contention, the learned Senior counsel relied on the below mentioned judgments.

i) (Kattiya Pillai and another Vs. Ramaswamia Pillai and others) AIR 1929 Madras 396 @ 398 a Division Bench of this Court held thus:-

"The plaintiff asks that the will may be declared void. That section further enacts, that in such a suit, the Court may in its discretion, adjudge the instrument void or voidable and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. In a suit rightly framed under that section, it is the Court's function to order the instrument to be cancelled. It is not a part of the prayer in the plaint. Then again, the section goes on to say that if the instrument is one that has been registered under the Registration Act, the Court shall send a copy of its decree to the