Order of trial court proper and justified.

1. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No.820 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Salem is the petitioner herein. The above Revision has been filed against the Order dismissing I.A. No.709 of 2000 filed under Section 151, C.P.C to try issue No.4 ie.,

" Whether the plaintiff has valued suit properly and paid correct court fees as a preliminary issue ".

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.828 of 1995 against the 2nd respondent/first defendant and the petitioner herein, praying the court to grant a decree setting aside the sale deed dated 18.3.1993 executed by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as vitiated by fraud, cheating and fraudulent misrepresentation and not valid in law and to declare the plaintiff’s title to the suit property. The plaintiff also sought for a decree for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. Briefly, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is the ancestral property and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in her own right and that the first defendant, a neighbour, took advantage of the plaintiff’s old age and illiteracy, when the plaintiff conveyed her desire to put up a construction and for which she required some funds. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant assured her that he would arrange for some loan from the Government. Representing that the presence of the plaintiff is necessary, the first defendant took her to some office and asked her to put the left hand thumb impression in a number of papers. Believing the representation that she will be paid Rs.20,000 by way of loan, she affixed her thumb impression in the papers as required by the 1st defendant. The version of the plaintiff is that she did not receive any amount by way of loan as promised by the first defendant. But on the other hand, the first defendant came out saying that he p urchased the property from her. The plaintiff when verified with the office of the Sub Registrar, came to understand that the first defendant had obtained sale deed from her in respect of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 11,000 and subsequently, he sold the property to the 2nd defendant on 30.8.1993 for a consideration of Rs.13,750. The sum and substance of the plaintiff’s claim is that she had been cheated and that the first defendant had played fraud on her, and in fact, the suit property was worth Rs. 1,00,000 on the date of the alleged sale.

4. The first defendant would deny the various averments made by the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff wanted to sell the suit property to convert her thatched house into a tiled house and offered him to sell the property and hence he purchased the same under a registered sale deed for a proper and valuable consideration and the same was known to her three daughters and son-in-laws and in fact with their consent.

5. The 2nd defendant viz., the petitioner herein also denied the various allegations made by the plaintiff. In para No.9 of the written statement, the 2nd defendant has stated that the property was not worth Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of sale, but on the other hand, the suit property was worth only Rs.10,000/-, which was sold by the plaintiff to the first defendant. The 2nd defendant has further raised a plea that the plaintiff has to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of the suit as stated by the plaintiff, under Section 40 of the Court fees Act and even according to the plaintiff, the suit property was worth Rs.1,00,000 in 1993. Hence, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is to be made on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint only.

6. Pending suit, the 2nd defendant filed an application in I.A. No.7 09 of 2000 under Section 151, CPC, praying the court to try issue No.4 viz., " Whether the plaintiff has valued t