The main legal point established is that when the plaintiff is not a party to the document, the proper court fee payable for a suit for declaration is only under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif, Palani. It was a suit for a decree of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 27 May, 2010, executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant as null and void.

2. The respondent, on appearance, filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, to try the pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

3. The learned Trial Judge, on a consideration of the matter, directed the petitioner to withdraw the suit and file the same before the appropriate Court, after paying Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The order dated 29 April, 2013 is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale deed in question was executed by playing fraud and as such, Court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, was correctly paid. According to the learned counsel, there is no question of paying Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, on account of the fact that the document was not executed by the petitioner and it was an act of fraud.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

6. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2011, praying for a decree of declaration. The petitioner wanted a declaration with respect to a document executed on 27 May, 2010. The sale deed indicates the value of the property.

7. The sale deed in question was executed by the power agent of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that his power agent executed the document, without his knowledge. The petitioner alleged fraud against his power agent. It was his further contention that the respondent colluded with his power agent and got a sale deed executed on 27 May, 2010.

8. The petitioner was not a party to the document.

9. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner contended that since he was not a party to the document, and the document was executed by playing fraud, there is no need to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

10. The learned Trial Judge directed the petitioner to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, taking into account the value of the suit property, as found in the sale deed.

11. Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in M.Mani v. P.Latha & others [2012(5) LW 136]. This Court observed that even though the sale deed was executed by the vendor as the power agent of the plaintiff, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff was a party to the document. This Court set aside the order of Trial Court, directing the petitioner to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and held that the plaintiff has to value the relief of declaration under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

12. This Court, in Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M.Shanmugam [2006(4) MLJ 924] held that when the plaintiffs are not parties to the impugned sale deed, they need not pay Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and payment of Court-fee under Section 25(d) is proper.

13. In M.Nelson Babu v. K.Kamalesh Babu & another [2010(1) LW 289], the learned Judge found that the plaintiffs were not parties to the document. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the proper Court fee payable by the plaintiffs is only under Section 25(d) of the Act and there is no need to pay Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Act. The learned Judge further held that for deciding the value of Court fee, the averments in the plaint alone are to be considered by the Court.

14. In Palaniswamy, K. v. S.B.Subramani [2007(1) CTC 300], a learned Judge of this Court, having found that the owner of the property was not a party to the