Court fee payable is to be decided on the basis of the plaint averments and not on the basis of the reliefs found in prayer column.

This above Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants against the fair and decretal order of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Pudhucherry, dated 6. 2005 in I.A.Nos.1256, 272, 1311, 1447 of 2004 and 3803/2003, 1221/04, 3805/03, 1222, 1327, 1218 of 2004 and 3804/03 and 2226 of 2004 in the respective suits by which the learned District Munsif refused to take up the jurisdictional issue as the preliminary issue.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the respective suits. The plaintiff filed the suits O.S.No.630, 714, 590 of 2002 and 109, 629 and 108 of 2003 to declare the sales vide sale deeds dated 20.11.1998, 9. 1997, 212. 1997, 10. 1998, 19. 1997 and 21. 1998 respectively registered in the District Registrar Office, Pudhucherry as null and void.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Rajamannar Chettiar and the same devolved on the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs on the intestate death of Rajamannar Chettiar. The defendants approached the plaintiff and made an offer to sell the property for a sale consideration of Rs.75 lakhs and the plaintiff also paid an advance of Rs.5 lakhs. They entered into a sale agreement on 210. 1994 to execute the sale deed after the conclusion of the pending litigation before this court in A.S.No.320 of 1993. According to the plaintiff, even in the CMP.No:5937 of 1993, in the said Appeal Suit, this court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any other person pending disposal of the Appeal Suit. However, inspite of the same, the defendants through the third defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 20.11.1998, 9. 1997, 212. 1997, 10. 1998, 19. 1997 and 21. 1998 in respect of a portion of the suit property. Therefore the plaintiff, after sending lawyers notice instituted the respective suits of the relief as stated above. Whileso, the plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 25(d) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

.4. The second defendant filed the respective Interlocutory Applications challenging the valuation of the suit under Section 25(d) of the said Act, as according to him, the sale deeds which are sought to be declared as null and void, the proper court fees to be paid is on the market value of the property mentioned in the respective sale deeds. If that case, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court exceeds and the suits have to be tried only by the Subordinate Court. Therefore the defendant prayed to take up the issue whether the suit has been properly valued and necessary court fee has been paid or the relief’s claimed as per the averments in the plaint and on the basis on which the claim is made, to consider and decide whether the said court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. It is the defendants case that the plaintiff has to file a suit for specific performance and has invoked the wrong provision of law to avoid the payment of court fee.

5. The plaintiff repelled the contention of the defendants saying that the remedy for specific performance will arise only after disposal of the A.S.No.320 of 1993 pending before the High Court and further the relief sought for is not for cancellation of sale deed since he is not a party to the sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, since the defendants have executed the sale deeds in violation of the injunction order passed by the court, the plaintiff has filed the suits for declaring the said sale deeds as null and void and therefore Section 25(d) of the Act alone attracts in respect of payment of court fee. Further even to decide the preliminary issue of court fees, the same requires elaborate evidence on both sides and therefore the same cannot be decided preliminarily.

6. The learned III Additional District Munsif, Pudhucherry, on a consideration of the pleadings and the submissions of the respective counsel, dismissed the said applicat