1. This revision is filed to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.1968 of 2012 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1968 of 2012 against the revision petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 herein for the relief of declaration that the Deed of Settlement under Document No.797/2004, Sale Deed under Document No.2940 of 2009, Sale Deed under Document No.2941 of 2009, Sale Deed under Document No.2942 of 2009 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 through their power agent the 4th defendant on the office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Saidapet, Chennai-6, to be declared as null and void in so far as the schedule mentioned property and for permanent injunction.

3. It is submitted by Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, the learned Senior counsel representing Mr.M.Balachandar that the plaint filed by the first respondent is a clear abuse of process of court and the first respondent has no title or right over the suit property and he has also admitted in the earlier writ proceedings that he has no title and the suit filed without paying proper court fee is liable to be struck down.

4. According to the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners, the documents, which are sought to be declared as null and void are Settlement Deeds and Sale Deeds and the value of the property in those documents exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and for getting declaration to set aside the documents or to get declaration that the documents are null and void, court fee has to be paid under section 27(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1995 and if so valued, the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the first respondent/plaintiff valued the suit under section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1995 and hence, the valuation of the suit and the payment of court fee are not proper and therefore, the plaint is liable to be struck down.

5. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that in W.P.No.15029 of 2011, the first respondent has admitted that he has no right over the suit property and that was also recorded in that order and O.S.No.8508 of 2010 was filed by the husband of the first respondent and on the date of filing of the said suit by the husband of the first respondent, M.E.Paul Raj was dead and by committing forgery and fraud on the court, the suit was filed and later, it was attempted to be withdrawn by the first respondent and that was not allowed and the present suit was also barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, having regard to the earlier suit O.S.No.8508 of 2011 filed in the name of the deceased M.E.Paul Raj.

6. The learned Senior counsel also submitted in detail how the first respondent has no right over the property and also explained in detail the title of the revision petitioners and submitted that the suit is a clear abuse of process of court and it is liable to be struck down. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments.

01.2012(4)CTC 308, in the case of the Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, represented by its Chairperson/Manging Trustee

02.1989(1)LW 403, in the case of Kottaiyur Chidambaram Chettiar Girls Higher Secondary School rep. by its Secretary vs. F.X.Philomina Kalaichellvi and one another.

03.1991-2-LW 688, in the case of Rathinam and others vs. Pavathal.

04.1994-1-L.W.21, in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs vs. Jagannath (dead) by Lrs & others.

05.AIR 1977 SC 2421, in the case of T.Arivandan dam vs. T.V.Satyapal & another.

06.(1997)2 SCC 552, in the case of Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and others.

07.1997-2-L.W 761, in the case of Ranipet Municipality rep. by its Commissioner & Special Officer, Ranipet vs. M.Shamsheerkhan

08.2007(4) CTC 70, in the case of Chinna Nachiappan and another vs. PL.Lakshmanan.

09.2009