The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correct valuation and payment of court fees under Sections 25(d) and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and the right of defendants to raise objections regarding the adequacy of court fees paid by the plaintiffs.

1. The Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 07.09.2010 in I.A.No.3158 of 2009 in O.S.No.1724 of 2009 passed by the Learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

2. The Learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, while passing the Order dated 07.09.2010 in I.A.No.3158 of 2009 in O.S.No.1724 of 2009, has categorically inter alia observed that “... this Court is of the considered view that this Court can infer or decide the question whether the sale consideration is genuine or fraudulent only at the time of trial and it must be proved or disproved only by the evidence. This disputed fact is unable to be decided in a premature stage, etc.,” and further, opined that “all the averments made by the Petitioners can be a defence for contesting the case of the Respondents at the time of trial” and resultantly, dismissed the petition without costs.

3. Challenging the Order of dismissal dated 07.09.2010 in I.A.No.3158 of 2009 in O.S.No.1724 of 2009 passed by the Learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants submits that the trial Court has dismissed the Application for rejection of plaint, based on valuation of the suit without dealing with the ingredients of Section 40 and Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Further, the trial Court has relegated that aspect of the matter to be examined at the time of trial of the main case with procedure, is not correct in law.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants urges before this Court that the averment made in the suit is that the Respondents/Plaintiffs together with their father Veerasamy and one Suresh appointed the 1st Petitioner/1st Defendant as Power Agent and the said Power of Attorney was duly registered on 04.07.2006 (vide Doc.No.409 of 2006). Also, the further averment is that the 1st Petitioner/1st Defendant utilising the 2nd

Power of Attorney executed a Sale Deed in favour of his wife viz., the 2nd Petitioner/Defendant on 15.07.2008.

5. That part, it is the stand of the Respondents/Plaintiff in the suit that one of the Principals mentioned in the Power of Attorney viz., Veerasamy died on 21.09.2007, leaving behind the Respondents/ Plaintiffs to succeed to his estate. The plea taken in the Plaint is that consequent to the death of one of the Principals, the entire Power of Attorney lapses and as such, the execution of Sale Deed on 15.07.2008 is a fraudulent and not binding on them.

6. Resting on the aforesaid allegations, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have sought the relief of declaration for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction and valued the same under Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants submits that the Petitioners/Defendants filed I.A.No.3158 of 2009 in O.S.No.1724 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for passing of an order by the Court in directing the Respondents/Plaintiffs to pay necessary Court Fee under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, in respect of sale value and upon payment of the fee to return the plaint, with a direction to present the case before the Competent Court possessing pecuniary jurisdiction or otherwise to reject the plaint.

8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants contends that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are nevertheless parties to the Sale Deed, dated 15.07.2008, since on that day, when the Sale Deed was executed, the Deed of Power of Attorney, dated 04.07.2006, was not cancelled.

9. Yet another plea of the Petitioners/Defendants is that the Power of Attorney executed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs would become inoperative insofar as the deceased Principal is concerned and in respect of Principals, who are very much alive, the same continues in L