The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the appropriate valuation of a suit under the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1972, based on the averments made in the plaint.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal orders dated 1 9.10.2004 made in I.A.No.1129 of 2004 in O.S.No.508 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry.

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.508 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The revision petitioner filed the petition in I.A.No.1129 of 2004 under Section 151 C.P.C. praying for trial of the suit on all the issues instead of hearing the same for the purpose of valuation of the suit with reference to the Pondicherry Court Fees Act. Learned District Munsif, Pondicherry after hearing both sides directed the revision petitioner to seek the relief of declaration of title to the property and that if it is not prayed for, he has to comply with the provision under Section 27(a) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The petitioner did not comply with the order and therefore the petition was dismissed with costs. Hence, the revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The revision petitioner filed the said suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 4.9.2002 executed in favour of the second respondent/second defendant and the sale deed dated 11.4.2003 executed by the second respondent in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 herein/ defendants 3 and 4 are null and void ab initio and unenforceable in the eye of law and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the revision petitioner. He has valued the suit under Sections 25(d) and 27(c) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1972 and paid court fee accordingly.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the written statement questioning the valuation of the suit by the revision petitioner and contended inter alia that since the title of the revision petitioner under the sale deed 9.5.2002 is denied by the defendants, the suit must be valued under Section 25(b) of the said Act on the basis of the market value of the suit property and that if the market value is taken into account, the District Munsif Court will not have jurisdiction as a result of which the plaint has to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

6. Learned Principal District Munsif directed the revision petitioner as referred to above and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued at the outset that the revision petitioner purchased the suit property under the sale deed dated 9.5.2002 from one Josephraj, who became the exclusive owner by virtue of the partition deed dated 12.11.1914, for valuable consideration and he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since then in his own right. Further according to him, the vendor Josephraj, died on 29.5.2002 at Anna Nagar, Pondicherry as per document No.13 Death certificate produced along with the plaint and in spite of such factual aspect, the second respondent created the sale deed dated 4.9.2002 in respect of the suit property as if the same had been executed by the said Josephraj by impersonation long after his death and in turn he has executed the registered sale deed dated 11.4.20 03 in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. Hence, he has contended that on the basis of such averments in the plaint, it has become necessary on the part of the revision petitioner to file the suit for declaration that the sale deed 4.9.2002 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner''''s possession and enjoyment of the suit property and accordingly, the suit has been valued under appropriate provision of law. Hence, he has urged that the contentions put forth in the written statement filed by the respondents need not be taken into account in deciding the question with reference to valuation