ORDER:- The lower court has, rightly, appreciated the position, Having regard to the circumstances stated by it in an elucidatory order, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 40 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. This is a suit in which, effectively, the plaintiffs are seeking to set aside a judgment of a Division Bench of this court passed in L. P. Appeal No. 68 of 1966, on 24-10-1972. The question is whether the lower court was right in having directed the plaintiffs to evaluate the property as on the date of the filing of the suit or, should it have said that the market value should be on the basis of the value of the property as disclosed in the earlier proceedings. In the earlier proceedings, the first plaintiff was not a party. It was the second plaintiff who was conducting the litigation as purchaser of the property from the first plaintiff. This distinguishing feature has to be borne in mind. The plaintiffs, therefore, have come to court, though conjointly to set aside, as I said, effectively, the judgment of this court which relates to immovable property. In these circumstances, it is obligatory that they should value the subject-