The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court fee payable on the plaint is to be decided based on the pleadings of the plaint, and the power of review is available to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.

Aggrieved over the order passed in I.A.No:59 of 2006 filed by the review petitioner/plaintiff, reversing the order directing the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and not under Section of the Court Fees Act as directed earlier in the earlier Interlocutory Application No:605 of 2005, this Revision has been filed by the 1st defendant.

2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for declaration of title of A schedule property and for consequential injunction as against the defendant and for reopening the partition deed dated 11. 2001 by effecting a fresh partition of B Schedule property by dividing into 4 equal shares and for allotting one such share to the plaintiff. As such, he valued the suit A Schedule under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees Act and for half of the market value paid a court fee of Rs.958/=. Since the plaintiff wanted to ignore the partition dated 11. 2001 as it was obtained by coercion, undue influence and fraud he did not seek for cancellation of the said partition deed and paid a court fee under Section 37(2) of the Act as far as B Schedule of property is concerned.

3. Challenging the same, the defendant filed I.A.No:605 of 2005 stating that the court fee has to be paid under Section 40 of the Act. The trial court accepting the contention of the defendant and Following the judgement of this Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 197, directed the plaintiff to value the suit property under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff filed Review Petition in I.A.No:59 of 2006 contending that the decision relied on by the trial court is applicable only to the suits field for cancellation of the sale deeds and would not apply with regard to a suit for partition and the suit ought to have been valued only according to the pleadings of the plaintiff and not according to the written statement filed by the defendant. The Trial Court accepting the contentions of the plaintiff reversed its earlier order and held that the suit has to be valued only under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act. Against the same, the present revision is filed by the defendant.

5. Mr. N. Manokaran, Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that the trial courts power of review can be exercised only for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view and the review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. Further, the power of review is not an inherent power. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC, it is not permissible for a decision to be reheard and corrected as held by the Apex Court in AIR 2000 (SC) 1650 and in 1998 (1) CTC 25.

6. It is well settled law that the court fee payable on the plaint is to be decided on the very pleadings of the plaint and not even on the reliefs prayed for in the suit. In the present case a perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiff is virtually seeking to set aside the earlier partition as not valid and not binding upon him and therefore the relief in substance indirectly amounts to seeking for the cancellation of the earlier partition. Further, as regards A-schedule of property, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to payment of court fees. The only dispute is with regard to B Schedule of property. Since the plaintiff ignores the partition deed dated 11. 2001, and he wants to reopen the partition deed by effecting a fresh partition it would affect the suit for cancellation of the earlier partition deed in which the plaintiff was also a party to the same. As such as far as B schedule of property is concerned, the plaintiff will have to pay court fee for cancellation of the earlier partition deed also.

7. This Court in 2007 (I) MLJ 696 (S. Rajasekaran Vs. K. Sargunam) again reiterated that when a party to the document challenges the same on the ground that it is forged, then the suit property has to be valued at the market Rate and court fee should be