1. Both the revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 19.08.2005 made in IA No.520 of 2005 in O.S.No.952 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court – 1, Coimbatore.

2. CRP No. 1329 of 2005 was filed by the defendants 1 to 3, 7 to 9 and 12 in the suit and CRP No. 1340 of 2005 has been filed by the 10th defendant in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts contained in CRP No. 1329 of 2005.

4. The first respondent in CRP No. 1329 of 2005 filed O.S.No.952 of 2004 for partition and separate possession. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 are brothers and sisters and the legal heirs of their parents late Maruthachalam and his wife late Iyyammal. The defendants 7 to 9 are the business concerns run by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6.

5. Briefly stated, the plaintiff claims that his father and his brother jointly sold 2.00 Acres of the joint family property along with other movables and immovables and out of the said funds and also along with the funds they possessed, the lands were at first purchased in the name of late Iyyammal in and around 1957 for the welfare of the family. Thereafter, factory building was put up over the said property and a Jinning Factory was started in the year 1961. All the members are in joint family and they have been continuing the joint family business for more than 70 years. The business prospered and a lot of properties were also purchased and all the properties are nothing but joint-family properties. It is asserted in the plaint that though all were purchased in the name of Iyyammal, the properties were purchased for the entire welfare and benefit of the joint-family. The plaintiff's father got separated from his brother and thereafter, the plaitniff, his father and the defendants 1 to 6 enjoyed their share of property jointly and the plaintiff has been in joint and constructive possession of the suit properties. As the plaintiff is suffering from physical problems and as he has no issues, his brothers, the defendants 1 to 3 and his sisters, the defendants 5 & 6 attempted a plot against the plaintiff by bringing about several manipulated and fabricated documents with a view to deprive the plaintiff his share of the property. Despite the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not come forward to partition the property and therefore, he issued a notice on 09.12.2002 demanding his legitimate shares in the movables and immovable properties and also for rendition of all the accounts of the business concerns i.e. the defendants 7 to 9 . As the defendants did not come forward to partition the property as demanded by him, the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 952 of 2004 for partition and separate possession of his 8/42 share.

6. Written statements and additional written statements were filed by the defendants including the defendants 10 to 12 who were added as parties by way of an amendment. While opposing the partition suit, the defendants questioned the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff as according to them, the suit properties were not in joint possession of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff ought not to have paid the fixed Court Fee under Sec. 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Valuation Act.

7. The defendants 1 to 3, 7 to 9 and 12 filed I.A.No. 520 of 2005 under Sec.12 of the Tamilnadu Court Fee and suits Valuation Act read with Order 14 Rule 2 CPC to try the issue regarding the correctness of the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee under Sec.37(2) of the Court Fees Act, as a preliminary issue. In support of I.A.No. 520/05, an affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated that the suit has been filed for partition, paying a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Sec.37(2) of the Court Fees Act, as if the plaintiff was in joint possession of all the suit properties. Three sides in the lands of items No.4 and 5 have been sold by them to the 10th defendant as per two Sale Deeds dated 0