Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 applies to suits for cancellation of decrees or documents that purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.549 of 1989, Subordinate Judge’s Court, Erode, against the order passed by the court below holding that the court-fee paid on the plaint under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), is incorrect and that court-fee should have been paid under Sec.40 of the Act. The first petitioner is the mother of petitioners 2 and 3 and the first respondent is the father of petitioners 2 and 3 and the husband of the first petitioner. In the plain-filed by petitioners, it had been stated that the first respondent the serving at Erode in 1989 and the petitioners wanted to acquired house property at Periyar Nagar in Erode under a Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and inasmuch as the first respondent’s father was then a government servant with greater chances of getting allotted a site, he made an application and he was allotted a house-site on lease-cum- sale. Accord ing to the petitioners, the father of the first petitioner was prosperous textile merchant at Salem and was willing to contribute funds, while the monthly salary of the first respondent was inadequate even to meet the family expenses and the father of the first petitioner, out of his funds, contributed the amount payable under the lease-cum-sale agreement for the benefit of the petitioners and the real owners of the property acquired were, only the petitioners. The first respondent also obtained a loan for putting up the construction and the loan was discharged in monthly instalments from the salary of the first respondent and there was very little that was left to first respondent out of the salary for the sustenance of the family. In addition to the borrowed amounts, according to the petitioners, further amounts were also spent by the first petitioner by the sale of a portion of her jewels and other stridhana funds and the property had been acquired by the contributions of the petitioners and the first respondent was only a name lender. Owing to the pendency of proceedings in regard to the compensation awardable for the lands acquired, the site of the property had not been duly conveyed in respect of the allottees. While matters stood thus, the first respondent on 30- 7-1987, entered into a fraudulent sale agreement with the second respondent agreeing to sell the property for Rs.5.40 lakhs and taking advantage of the youth and inexperience of petitioners 2 and 3 and their implicit faith, obedience and regard for their parents, the first respondent obtained the signatures of second and third petitioners in the sale agreement even when the third petitioner was a minor. In collusion with the second respondent, the first respondent, according to the petitioners, had also induced petitioners 2 and 3 to subscribe their signatures to the agreement without knowing what the document really was. The first respondent, according to the plaint, did not have any absolute right or title or possession over the property and the agreement also was not entered into either for family necessity or for the welfare of petitioners 2 and 3 and the sale agreement was characterised as invalid and not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners further stated that all the respondents had colluded together and proposed to act in furtherance of the sale agreement which, according to the petitioners, was neither valid nor binding on them. The fourth respondent, during the pendancy of the suit, claimed to have taken possession of the suit property, as a tenant and the fifth respondent put forward a claim that he was the general power of attorney agent of the first respondent and the fifth respondent is the son of the second respondent and the fourth respondent is a very close and thick friend of the second respondent and they were, therefore, impleaded as parties in order to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs. The cause of action