The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 20.11.2016 in unnumbered S.R.

2. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.S.R.No.7522 of 2016 against the respondents claiming for declarations, permanent injunction, for accounts and for mesne profit. In the prayer, in para 16 (a), the petitioners sought for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed, dated 09.10.2015 bearing Document No.755/2015 registered in the office of SRO Palayamkottai executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent and financed by the third respondent, as null and void under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and for consequential relief of possession of S1 apartment, the second schedule property and part of the first schedule property and to hand over the same to the petitioner.

3. The learned Judge returned the plaint on the ground that the petitioner has not properly valued the relief of possession and on such proper valuation, the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to properly value and present the plaint in proper Court within one month. Against the said order of return, the present civil revision petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments in the grounds raised in the plaint and submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated Section 25 (a), (b), (d) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and the order of learned Judge directing the petitioners to value the suit (a) prayer for recovery of possession under Section 30 of the Court Fee Act is not correct. The learned Judge having held that the petitioner has properly valued the relief of declaration and erred in holding that the petitioner has not properly valued the suit in respect of relief of possession. The learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the ratio laid down in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relief of possession is a consequential relief for declaration as contemplated under Section 25 (d) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and therefore, the Court fee paid is proper.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment in J. Vasanthi and others vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal and others reported in (2016) 4 MLJ 375, in which, it is stated as follows:-

“12. A Reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has denied the execution of sale deeds. In an earlier occasion, this Court on a similar issue has held that Court fee payable is only under Section 25(d) and not under Section 40 of the Act. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

13. Further the valuation of the property and Court Fee are not purely question of law. It is a mixed question of fact and law. This can be decided only, based on the evidence let in by the parties. Till that time, the averments made in the plaint has to be taken as correct, with regard to the valuation and payment of Court Fee. In the circumstances, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the said order, warranting interference by this court.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a judgment in Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Slem by its Partner R.S. Gunasekaran vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 1986 (3) CTCOL 293, wherein, it has been held as follows:-

“I have heard learned counsel for both sides. This suit is for a declaratory relief not covered by section 25(a), (b) or (c), of the Act. The consequential relief of injunction is not with reference to immovable property and hence Section 25(b) will not apply. No relief of declaration is sought for in respect of title to any immovable property. Only the mode of classification of the plaintiff's service for purposes of levying current consumption charges is sought to be declared as ultra vires.