The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the substance of the claim, the requirement to decide issues together, and the discretion of the court to try jurisdictional issues as preliminary issues. The judgment also emphasized the need for evidence in determining certain issues and the application of relevant legal principles from previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decretal Order dated 09.06.2014 in I.A.No.587 of 2013 in O.S.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.)

1. The plaintiff in OS No.66 of 2012, on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, is the Civil Revision petitioner. Before the said Court, he has filed a suit as against the respondents herein for the following relief’s:

(a) Declaring the plaintiff’s exclusive title to the suit properties.

(b) Directing the 8th defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit item No.1

(c) Directing the 8th defendant to pay future mesne profits to the plaintiff.

(d) Directing the 8th defendant to pay future mesne profits in respect of suit item No.1 in a separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC.

(e) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 and 9 to 12 and their men, servants and agents from interfering in manner with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit items 2 to 5.

(f) Granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants 13 and 14 to transfer the patta for the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff.

(g) Directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff and

(h) Granting such other relief’s as to this Hon’ble Court may seem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The respondents herein after entering appearance, filed a written statement and thereafter, they filed an application in IA No.587 of 2013 under Order 14 Rule 2(2) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to frame the following preliminary issues

(i) whether the Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction in the suit ?

(ii) whether the suit is properly valued?

3. The learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, after affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, by order dated 09.06.2014, allowed the application filed by the respondents herein and framed the preliminary issues as prayed for by the respondents.

4. Aggrieved over the said order, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court, with the Civil Revision Petition and prays to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.06.2014 passed in IA No.587 of 2013 in OS No.66 of 2012.

5. Before the Court below, on behalf of respondents herein, the deceased 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, filed an affidavit in support of the petition filed under Order 14 Rule 2(2) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, in which he has pleaded as follows:

(a) The plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and he has not paid sufficient Court fee for the suit. If the suit is properly valued, then the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, may not have jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the Revision Petition / plaintiff.

6. Resisting the claim made by the respondents / defendants, the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed a counter affidavit before the Court below, wherein he has stated as follows:

(a) The respondents / defendants have filed the application, with sole intention of dragging on the proceedings for another 30 years. They have not made out any case, either in the written statement or in the affidavit to substantiate their claim to try the jurisdiction as preliminary issue, except a bald allegation that the suit has not been properly valued and sufficient Court fee, has not been paid.

(b) Further, it is averred that the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, which is part of the agricultural land. The 8th defendant is in illegal occupation of the said Item on the strength of an illegal sale deed, alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant, who has no semblance of right over it. The 8th defendant has constructed a shed in part of Item No.1 and the same is now in a dilapidated condition. The revision