Valuation of suit property and payment of court fees are mixed questions of law and fact and should be decided during trial. The issue of limitation is also a mixed question of law and fact and should be decided during trial.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 3.3.2011 made in I.A.No.175 of 2010 in O.S.No.12123 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-V), Chennai, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

2. The petitioner herein is the second defendant in the said suit. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the first defendant in the said suit. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration to declare the gift deed, dated 16.7.2001 and the sale deed, dated 16.3.2005 as null and void; for possession of the suit premises and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering and transferring the suit property in favour of third parties.

3. The petitioner as second defendant filed the said application for rejection of the plaint mainly by contending that the suit was barred by limitation and it was not properly valued. The said application was resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff contending that the suit was not undervalued, as the Court fee was rightly paid under Section 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act by valuing the suit property at Rs.21 laks. It is further contended that the relief of possession being the consequential relief, there need not be any separate valuation of the suit property for such consequential relief. Insofar as the objection with regard to the limitation, it is contended by the plaintiff that she filed O.P.No.520 of 2004 before this Court for grant of Letters of Administration and such petition was ordered only on 14.6.2007, and hence, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff only from the date of the said order. Thus it is contended that the suit was filed within three years from the said date, and therefore, the suit was filed well within the period of limitation.

4. The Court below found that the suit was filed for declaration that the gift deed, dated 16.7.2001 is null and void and the relief of possession was sought for only as a consequential relief. Thus, the Court below has found that the valuation under Section 25(a) of the said Act is sufficient for the relief. Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the Court below found that the suit was filed well within three years from the date of the order made by this Court in O.P.No.520 of 2004 granting Letters of Administration to the first respondent/plaintiff. Thus, by observing so, the Court below found that the petition seeking rejection of the plaint on those grounds, cannot be sustained, and accordingly, dismissed the said petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of the document sought to be declared as null and void, and therefore, the suit having not been filed within such period, is hopelessly barred by limitation, and hence, the Court below ought to have rejected the plaint. He further submitted that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff was by under-valuing the property, since for the relief of recovery of possession, the plaintiff has not valued the suit property properly. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006 (10) SCC 442 (Binapani Kar Chowdhury Vs. Sri Satyabrata Basu).

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff only after the order was made by this Court in O.P.No.520 of 2004 and therefore, filing the suit within three years from the date of such order, is within the period of limitation. He further submitted that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act contemplates that no right can be claimed in respect of the property referred to under a Will, unless probate of the said Will is ordered by the competent Court. Insofar as the quest