1. The 4th defendant in O.S.No.154 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent / plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of her 1/3rd share in the suit property and for delivery of vacant possession or in the alternative preliminary decree for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit property and for mesne profits.

3. The case of the plaintiff / respondent as per the plaint was that the properties are ancestral joint family-coparcenary properties belonging to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 sold the properties to the 3rd respondent under two registered sale deed, dated 10.09.1997 and 11.09.1997 for a very low price and the sale deed are not binding on her and the 4th defendant, namely, the revision petitioner herein claims to have purchased those properties from the 3rd defendant and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief as stated above.

4. The revision petitioner / 4th defendant filed a statement, disputed the claim of the plaintiff in the suit property and also stated in para 10 of the statement that the framing of suit is not correct and without seeking the relief for setting aside the sale by paying necessary court fees, the suit for partition is not maintainable. Thereafter, the Trial commenced and PW1 was examined in chief by filing proof of affidavit and when the case was posted for cross examination for PW1, the 4th defendant filed I.A.No.114 of 2010 under order 14 rule 2 read with section 151 of CPC to decide the valuation of the suit property and jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue and that petition was dismissed and against the same this revision petition is filed.

5. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.Senthil Swamy that even according to the respondent / plaintiff, the properties were sold under two documents referred to in the plaint and as per the two sale deeds, the properties were sold for a sum of Rs.3,77,571/- and Rs.1,66,116/-in the year 1997 and the suit was filed in the year 2008 and the value of the property is more than Rupees 15 lakhs and therefore, the District Munsif Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue and the suit ought to have filed before the Sub Court and therefore, the Court ought to have taken the issue of jurisdiction and valuation of the suit property as a preliminary issue. He further contended that even though the petition was filed under Order 14 Rule 2, the petition ought to have treated as a petition filed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and in that case, the issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue and no option is given to the Court and quoting of wrong provision of law is not a ground to deny the relief and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon my judgment reported in 2010-5 L.W. 334 (Regila Prem vs. Chellappan and others)

6. On the other hand, Mr.D.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner in the written statement has not stated that the suit is undervalued and he was challenging the framing of the suit stating that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the suit ought to have been filed to set aside the sale deed and therefore, the plea now raised cannot be considered. The learned counsel further submitted that even in the application filed under order 14 Rule 2, it has not been stated that the properties ought to have been valued as per the current market price and should not be valued on the basis of the kisth and therefor, it is not open to the revision petitioner to contend that the issue must be taken as apreliminary issue. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Court in printed in 2005 (2) MLJ 467, 2009-4-LW 432, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2807

7. It is seen from the plaint that the property is descri