The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief sought in substance indirectly amounted to seeking cancellation of the sale deed, which influenced the Court's decision to uphold the order for payment of court fee under Section 40 of the Act.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiffs against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.09.2011 made in OS.NO.283/2004 by the learned III Additional District Munsif (Trainee District Judge), Tirunelveli, sustaining the objection raised by the Respondent/Defendant and directing the Plaintiffs to pay court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act).

2. The deceased 1st Plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.No.361/2002 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.01.2001 executed by the deceased 1st Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant is only in respect of one acre of land described in the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the remaining 9 acres of land. According to him, the Respondent/Defendant cheated the Plaintiff and had obtained the sale deed for ten acres of land. The sale price was fixed at Rs.15000/-per cent and for one acre and the Defendant agreed to pay a sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs. An agreement of sale was also entered into between the parties on 29.01.1999. The Defendant paid the sale consideration by way of cheques on different dates and the sale deed was executed and registered in the Sub Registrar’s Office. Believing the representation that the sale deed relates to one acre, the Plaintiff signed the document and the same was also registered. Later, the Plaintiff came to know that the sale deed was obtained by the Defendant for the entire ten acres fraudulently. The sale deed obtained from the Plaintiff fraudulently is not binding on the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction as stated above. Pending the suit, the 1st Plaintiff died and the 2nd Petitioner and his son have been impleaded as the Plaintiffs 2 and 3.

3. Denying the averments in the plaint, the Defendant has filed a Written Statement, stating as follows:-

The Plaintiff has sold the property of an extent of ten acres at the rate of Rs.1500/- per cent and had received the entire sale consideration. The sale deed has been attested by his son, the 2nd Plaintiff herein. In the sale deed the value is shown as Rs.3,80,000/-at the request of the Plaintiff. Hence, the sale deed executed for proper consideration is valid and binding on the Plaintiffs. The prayer seeking for declaration that the sale deed in so far as one acre alone is valid amounts to cancellation of the said sale deed for the remaining nine acres and the court fee ought to have been paid by the Plaintiff under Section 40 of the Act.

4. The Defendant filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Act in IA.NO.525/2005 in OS.NO.283/ 2004 and it was allowed on 23.11.2005. In view of the same, a preliminary issue has been framed by the Trial Court and after hearing both sides, the Trial Court has passed an order directing the Plaintiffs to pay the court fee under Section 40 of the Act and further directed him to file necessary amendment to correct the value of the suit in the plaint.

5. It was resisted by the Plaintiffs contending that the sale deed had been obtained from the 1st Plaintiff (since deceased) under fraud and the sale deed is valid only in so far as one acre of land is concerned. Since the suit is not filed for cancellation of the sale deed, the Defendants cannot insist the Plaintiffs to pay court fee under Section 40 of the Act.

6. Upon consideration of the averments made in the plaint, the learned III Additional District Munsif, has found that the sale deed having been executed by the 1st Plaintiff himself, prima facie the sale deed is binding on the executant. Pointing out that the relief sought for by the Plaintiff that the sale deed is valid only for one acre of extent of land amounts to seeking for cancellation of the sale deed in