V.M. Velumani, J.

This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 23.12.2014, made in I.A.No.94 of 2014 in O.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

2. The petitioners are defendants 3,4 and 5 in the Suit in O.S.No.20 of 2014. One N.Ramani Kanthammal filed the Suit in O.S.No.20 of 2014, for declaration that said Ramani Kanthammal and the seventh defendant in the Suit are the owners of the suit schedule property, for declaration that the sale deeds, in Doc.No.922/1991, dated 30.08.1991, Doc.No.805/1991, dated 07.08.1991, Doc No.330/1994, dated 23.03.1993, Doc No.2395/1994, dated 04.01.1994, Doc.No.1239/2002, dated 16.07.2002, Doc.No.2097/2002, dated 10.06.2002 and Doc.No.214/2004, dated 11.03.2004, as null and void and for permanent injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.94 of 2014 under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the plaintiff to pay the Court fees under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and if the plaintiff failed to pay the Court fee, then plaint has to be rejected, since the plaint is undervalued.

3. According to the petitioners, Court fee has been paid by the plaintiff under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The plaintiff is seeking documents as null and void, which amounts to seeking a relief of cancellation of the said documents. Therefore, Court Fee is payable only under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and if the plaintiff failed to pay the Court Fee, then the plaint has to be rejected, since the plaint is undervalued.

4. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit and stated that she executed only an agreement of sale as security for Rs.50,000/- borrowed by her, from the second defendant and she did not execute any sale deed, in favour of any of the defendants. The documents are fabricated one, using blank signature taken from her by the second defendant. They also created a forged Will, as though her father Late Raja Chidambara Reddiyar executed a Will bequeathing to the first defendant, who is the son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied the execution of documents in question. Therefore, Court fee paid under Section 25(d) for declaration is correct and proper and prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned Judge considering the facts and materials on record, dismissed the application in I.A.No.94 of 2014 in O.S.No.20 of 2014. Against that order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Judge failed to see that,

"(1) by seeking declaration of the document in question as null and void, the plaintiff in fact seeking cancellation of said sale deeds;

(2) the plaintiff is liable to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, as she is seeking declaration for cancellation of sale deed. The plaintiff is not only seeking declaration that sale deeds are null and void, but also declaration that she and her sister seventh defendant are absolute owners;

(3) the plaintiff paid Court fee under Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, in order to overcome law of limitation as all the sale deeds are executed prior to 2004 and the suit is filed only in the year 2014;

(4) both plaintiff and first defendant have executed the document which are sought to be declared as null and void;

(5) the learned Judge erred in holding that judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 255 is not applicable to the facts of this case. The plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant sold by registered sale deed. Therefore prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition."

6. After the order in the above said interlocutory application, dated 23.12.2014, the plaintiff N. Ramanai Kanthammal died and her legal heirs are impleaded as respondents 5 to 14.

7. The learned counsel for the resp