1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 05.09.2008, passed in I.A.No.264 of 2008 in O.S.No.284 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

2. The suit has been laid by the revision petitioners against the respondents for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and direction. The respondents 1 to 3 had filed the written statement seriously contesting the claim of title to the suit property by the revision petitioners on various counts and contended that the suit property belongs to the fourth respondent herein and it is seen that the fourth respondent had not been originally arrayed as a party respondent in the litigation and subsequently, impleaded.

3. While so, it is found that the respondents 1 to 4 had preferred an application in the Trial Court, under Order XIV Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, contending that no portion of the suit property is an agricultural land or in the possession of the revision petitioners and according to them, they are running a High Secondary School in the suit property and the school building, auditorium, stages etc., had been constructed by them and exist in the suit property and suit property also comprises of the playground used by the School and in fact, the suit property has been in the possession of the respondents 1- 4 for more than 6 to 7 decades and despite the position being above, according to them, the revision petitioners have come forward the false suit as if the suit property is an agricultural land and the suit cannot be valued on the basis of the alleged kist paid by revision petitioners and the mere payment of the kist by itself would not confer the status of the agricultural land in respect of the suit property and according to them, the market value of the suit property is not less than Rs.3,00,00,000/- and therefore, the revision petitioners are liable to pay the proper Court fee for the above said market value of the suit property, as per Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and inasmuch as the Court fee paid by the revision petitioners, on the footing that the suit property is an agricultural land is incorrect and the valuation of the suit property had not been properly done by the revision petitioners and if the market value of the suit property is taken into consideration, even the Court would not have the jurisdiction to determine the suit and accordingly, prayed for to take up the issue regarding payment of the proper Court fee, which goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, as a preliminary one, had come forward with the said application.

4. The above said application of the respondents 1 to 4 had been resisted by the revision petitioners contending that the issue regarding the payment of the Court fee, which goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, is to be determined only during the course of trial and not as a preliminary issue and on that ground alone, the application is liable to be dismissed and further, according to them, as per the revenue records, the suit property is only classified as ryotwari land or agricultural land and on that basis, the revision petitioners have paid the Court fees based on the kist collected in respect of the suit property and on the question of the alleged improper valuation of the suit property, the suit should not be dismissed and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the application.

5. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions put-forth by the respective parties, determined that the revision petitioners have failed to establish that the suit property has been classified as agricultural land or ryotwari land as put-forth by them legally and with reference to the same, holding that the revision petitioners