M.S. Ramesh, J.

The defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the petitioners herein in the present revision which is filed against the order dismissing their application seeking for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The main ground raised in the aforesaid application for rejection of the plaint is that the relief claimed in the suit is undervalued since the suit property is a residential housing plot whereas the plaintiff had valued the suit property as an agricultural land. The court had rejected the petitioner's plea stating that no documents were produced alongwith the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to substantiate the nature of the property and that the issues raised for claiming rejection of plaint can be determined during the trial.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sale deed dated 24.12.2010 which is a prime document relied upon by the plaintiff is for a residential plot where the sale consideration has been shown as Rs. 32,70,000/-. By pointing out the valuation in the plaint, the learned counsel submitted that the market value of the suit property have been calculated for the relief of declaration based on the kist value of the property and as such the valuation for the relief claimed is under-valued. As such, the learned counsel submits that in view of Order VII Rule 11 (b), the plaint is liable to be rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioners herein ought to have substantiated their claim by producing relevant documents to establish the nature of the property and there is no infirmity on the finding of the court below and hence the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not require any consideration in the absence of such documents. Even otherwise, the learned counsel submitted that the issues with regard to the valuation of the suit can be gone during the course of trial and as such, the present Civil Revision Petition requires to be rejected.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

5. The issue as to whether the suit property is in the nature of a residential plot or an agricultural land would normally be determined by the court below on being satisfied with the necessary materials substantiating the character of the property. Nevertheless, when certain documents relied upon by the petitioners herein namely the sale deed produced alongwith the plaint prima facie evidences the suit property to be a residential plot, the same cannot be ignored.

6. The question as to whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground of valuation alone came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the J.Vasanthi & Others v. N.Ramani Kanthammal, (2018) 1 LW 351. The Hon'ble Apex court while deciding the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC on an application filed on the ground of under-valuation of the suit property, had observed that the valuation of a suit on payment of court fee shall depend upon the Special State Act and while allowing the Special Leave Petition, had directed for payment of the requisite court fee therein. In the light of such an observation, the State Act, namely the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act requires to be looked into.

7. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 provides for determination of market value as on the date of presentation of the plaint. As per the said provision, the estimate made by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the plaint requires to be accepted by the Trial Court subject to any objections that may be raised by the defendant. Section 12 of the Act deals with the decision as to proper fee in the Subordinate Courts. The substance of Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is to the effect that whenever a question as to valuation for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts is raised, such a plea requires to