The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of court fee payment should be based on the relief sought and not the entire agreement value. The court also emphasized the distinction between seeking specific performance of the contract and seeking the return of the advance amount.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decretal order, dated 18.6.2012 made in I.A. No. 39 of 2012 in O.S. No. 122 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.

2. The Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 39 of 2012 was filed by the respondent herein under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to reject the plaint relating to the suit in O.S. No. 122 of 2011 on the file of the said Court.

3. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking a money decree against the respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 21,04,000/- to be paid with 6% interest p.a., for the principal amount, Rs. 20,00,000/- from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of recovery of the said amount and for costs. In the plaint averments, the petitioner as plaintiff has stated that the respondent herein, who was the defendant in the suit represented that she owned a property, an extent of 57 cents punja land in S. No. 244/1 in Pachayankuppam village, Cuddalore Taluk and offered to sell the same. Having considered the representation, the petitioner/plaintiff agreed to purchase the said land for a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- and the agreement was reduced into writing on 6.4.2011. The respondent/defendant received part of the sale consideration, Rs. 20,00,000/- as advance amount and the balance of Rs. 40,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within three months to the plaintiff, in turn, the respondent/defendant agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

4. The petitioner has stated that he had entered into the agreement of sale, believing the words of the respondent and also paid part of the sale consideration, Rs. 20,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff came to know to his shock and surprise that there was a suit pending between one K. Veerappan, Kaliyamurthy, Pugazhendhi and S. Ramesh in O.S. No. 520 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore in respect of the suit property and that the said Ramesh filed Crl.O.P. No. 14379 of 2011 on the file of the High Court against the said Pugazhendhi and one Koutham Raja, questioning the transactions in respect of the property covered under the suit agreement. In support of the same, the petitioner/plaintiff had stated that he filed supporting documents. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, he issued legal notice to the respondent/defendant, rescinding the agreement for sale, dated 6.4.2011 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant and asked the defendant to return the advance amount with interest. The respondent/defendant having admitted the receipt of advance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the petitioner, raised frivolous and unsustainable defence. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit, seeking a money decree for the return of the advance amount with interest and costs.

5. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant filed an Interlocutory Application, seeking an order to reject the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The following issues were framed by the Court below:

“(i) Whether there is any encumbrances over the suit property?

(ii) Whether there is any suppression of facts by the seller pertaining to the sale of the suit property?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rescind the agreement?

(iv) What would be the relief, the plaintiff would be entitled to?”

6. The Court below held that the suit could not be treated as a simple money suit and therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff has to pay Court fee to the entire sale consideration, as per the agreement, dated 6.4.2011 and without rejecting the plaint, directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff to pay Court fee for the entire amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Aggrieved by which, this civil revision has been preferred.

7. Mr. N. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent, suppressing the material fact that there