ORDER :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 13.08.2014 made in I.A. No. 2145 of 2013 in O.S. No. 68 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners/defendants to reject the plaint.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit properties. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the first petitioner/defendant is a money lender and he is known to the respondent/plaintiff for the past ten years. He used to lend money to the companies for financial requirements. While lending loan, the first petitioner/defendant used to get registered power of attorney, deposit of title deed and also agreement for sale in respect of the properties.

3. Accordingly, while borrowing loan, the respondent/plaintiff executed power of attorney in favour of the second petitioner/defendant in respect of plot Nos. 96 & 97 viz., the suit schedule properties as directed by the first petitioner/defendant. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff sold out plot No. 96, in favour of one K. Joseph George by a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2009 vide document No. 2808 of 2009 and plot No. 97 was sold out to one D. Raja Singh Prabahar & A. Packia Rani by a registered sale deed dated 08.01.2010 vide document No. 68 of 2010. On the said sale consideration, the respondent/plaintiff settled the entire amount which was borrowed by him to the first petitioner/defendant with interest. In fact, by virtue of construction agreements dated 25.05.2009 & 05.11.2009, the respondent/plaintiff completed the construction and handed over possession to the said persons and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

4. After settling the entire amount, the first petitioner/defendant in order to grab the entire properties, executed a sale deed dated 26.07.2010 vide document No. 3907 of 2010 in his favour, through the power of attorney viz., the second petitioner/defendant. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff being the principal of the power of attorney executed in favour of the second petitioner/defendant, filed a suit for declaration to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the first petitioner/defendant through the second petitioner/defendant is null and void along with the injunction prayer.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants would submit that even according to the respondent/plaintiff, he sold out the suit schedule properties by the registered sale deeds dated 30.07.2009 and 08.01.2010. Therefore, the respondent has no title or right over the suit schedule properties, as such there is absolutely no cause of action to the respondent/plaintiff to file the present suit against the petitioners/defendants herein. He would further submit that the suit is valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act instead of valuing the suit properties under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, since the properties are valued at Rs.12,80,000/- as per the sale deed dated 26.07.2010 vide document No. 3907 of 2010. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 2145 of 2013 to reject the plaint. The trial Court without considering the above facts dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Though notice was served on the respondent/plaintiff herein and his name was printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of the respondent by person or through pleader.

7. Admittedly, the respondent was the absolute owner of the properties comprised in Plot Nos. 96 and 97 viz., suit schedule properties. According to the respondent/plaintiff while availing loan, he executed power of attorney in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the second petitioner/defendant as directed by the first petitioner/defendant. Eve