Prayer for setting aside sale deed said to be null and void not made.

The second defendant in O.S.No.127 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed challenging the order dated 8.4.2004, dismissing the petition I.A.No.272 of 2004 filed under Order XIV Rule 2(ii) read with Section 151 C.P.C. to try the issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issue.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for possession; for declaration that the power of attorney deed dated 21.1.1999 obtained by the first defendant by fraud and misrepresentation is not binding on the plaintiff and also for declaration that the sale deeds dated 27.1.1997, 29.1.1997 and 16.9.1999 executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 under the invalid power of attorney deed are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff claims title to the suit properties as grant made by the Tamil Nadu Government on 23.1.1973 and the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit properties by paying tax till 1988. The patta was cancelled by the Government on 25.5.1989 and challenging the same Writ Petition in W.P.No.12999 of 1989 was filed, in which the plaintiff was directed to exhaust his remedies before the Revenue Officials. The plaintiff preferred revision in the Revenue Department, in which also he was not successful and ended against him on 5.2.1992. The plaintiff filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.13019 of 1992 and as per order dated 8.1.1999, the title of the plaintiff in the suit properties has been confirmed, directing the Revenue Officials to conduct an enquiry and accordingly after enquiry, the patta for the properties were cancelled. Again the plaintiff filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.22727 of 2000 and got stay against the order of the Revenue Department on 15.9.2000. Since the plaintiff fell sick, he gave the Power of Attorney to the first defendant on 21.1.1997 to look after the properties. By misusing the same, the first defendant sold the properties to the defendants 2 and 3 and therefore, challenging the said sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 and seeking the above stated reliefs, the suit was filed.

4. The revision petitioner/second defendant filed the written statement and resisted the suit. The second defendant filed I.A.No.272 of 2004 that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction and so this issue is to be tried as preliminary issue. Further it is stated that for the relief to set aside the sale deeds, it is to be valued under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act and not under Section 25(a) of the Court Fees Act and so the plaintiff is to value the suit as per the value stated in the documents, which comes to Rs.6,00,000/- and the valuation of the suit property at 30 times of kist is not correct and if the suit is properly valued, the District Munsif Court will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. The plaintiff opposed the petition in the counter by stating that no prayer is sought to set aside the sale deeds dated 27.1.1997, 29.1.1997 and 16.9.1999 and as such, the Court fees paid valuing the suit under Section 25(a) of the Court Fees Act being proper, the said Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Further, it is also stated in the counter that the value mentioned in the documents which comes to Rs.6,00,000/- cannot be adopted for the purpose of payment of Court Fees.

6. The trial Court in not accepting the case of the revision petitioner/second defendant and finding that already trial of the suit was commenced and such issue has been raised in the additional written statement and accordingly additional issue has been framed as to whether the Court fees paid is correct and since that can be gone into only at the time of the trial of the suit, there is no necessity to try the issue as a preliminary issue and accordingly dismissed the