The main legal point established is that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction should be raised before the issues are settled and evidence is recorded, as per the provisions of Order 14 Rule 3 C.P.C. and the relevant case law.

1. Aggrieved over the suo motu additional issue framed by the Court below on 1.3.2010, with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in O.S.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs.

2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this civil revision petition, are as follows:-

(i) The petitioners herein have filed a civil suit as against the respondents in O.S.No.274 of 2007 for declaration of their title over the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is an agricultural land measuring to an extent of 6.84 acres in Survey No.71/1 and 5.40 acres in Survey No.71/5 of Nallur Village, Tiruppur District.

(ii) It is the case of the petitioners / plaintiffs that the suit property is a part of the joint family properties in the hands of one Chinna Palani Gounder and his father Kamachi Gounder. Out of the said properties, the properties in Survey No.71/1 and 71/5 were sold in a Court auction on 15.6.1937. One Valliappa Chettiar had purchased the said properties. Thereafter, the properties were partitioned in and by a registered partition deed between the family members on 28.5.1952. An extent of 5.94 acres of land out of 11.88 acres of land with a house in S.F.Nos.71/1 and 71/5 of Nallur Village was purchased by one Subbaraya Gounder and his three brothers viz., (1) Rangasamy Gounder, (2) Kamachi Gounder and (3) Murugasamy Gounder by virtue of a sale deed dated 2.9.1957. Even though the properties were sold in Court auction sale in the year 1937, the possession of the property was continued to be with Subbaraya Gounder and his three brothers. The said Subbaraya Gounder and his three brothers have partitioned the properties orally prior to 1960. On 9.7.1964, Subbaraya Gounder and his brother Kamachi Gounder exchanged their properties under registered deed of exchange. As per the deed of exchange, Subbaraya Gounder was allotted several properties inclusive of Survey Nos.71/1 and 71/5. Subsequently, the said Subbaraya Gounder executed a settlement deed in favour of the first petitioner herein, who in turn, executed two registered settlement deeds in favour of petitioners 2 and 5. Thus, these petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, respondents 1 to 4 herein, who have no title over the said property, are trying to disturb the possession of the petitioners. Hence, they have filed the present suit.

(iii) The said suit was resisted by the defendants / respondents herein stating that originally the suit property belonged to a temple. On 31.7.1972, the Settlement Tahsildar, issued patta to the ancestors of the respondents and from that date, they are in possession of the suit property. The petitioners on the basis of the forged documents, are trying to grab the said land.

(iv) On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below has framed six issues and the same are as follows:-

(1) Whether the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs ?

(2) Whether the suit property is in possession of the plaintiffs ?

(3) Whether the suit is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties ?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction ?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction ?

(6) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to ?

(v) On the side of the petitioners / plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.25 were marked. On the side of the defendants / respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

(vi) On 18.2.2010, the petitioners / plaintiffs have filed written arguments and argument was heard on the side of he respondents / defendants. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for clarification on 1.3.2010. On 1.3.2010, suo motu the Court below has framed an addi