JUDGMENT :

P. Rajamanickam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the First Defendant against the Order passed by the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, in O.S. No. 16 of 2011, dated 9.3.2015.

2. The First Respondent herein had filed a Suit in O.S. No. 16 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, to declare that the Sale Deed, dated 1.10.2009 executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Second Defendant is null and void and for consequential Injunction restraining the Second Defendant from alienating or encumbering the Suit property and also for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit property.

3. According to the Plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the Suit property and the First Defendant is his friend. His further case is that on 14.8.2004, he executed a Registered Power of Attorney in favour of the First Defendant in respect of the Suit property for the purpose of looking after the litigations. His further case is that without his instructions, the First Defendant colluded with the Second Defendant, who is his brother-in-law had executed a Sale Agreement, dated 25.10.2006 in favour the Second Defendant. After coming to know about the said Sale Agreement, the Plaintiff had cancelled the said Power of Attorney on 17.9.2008 by executing a Registered Cancellation Deed and also informed the said fact to the First Defendant in person. Even thereafter, the First Defendant took efforts to sell the property and hence, on 26.9.2009 the Plaintiff had sent a Letter by Registered Post to the First Defendant informing that the Power Deed was already cancelled but, the First Defendant had purposely did not receive the said Letter and returned the same.

4. His further case is that on 7.10.2009 he had sent a Registered Notice to the Third Defendant informing the fact that he already cancelled the Power Deed which was given to the First Defendant and that the Third Defendant had received the said Notice on 8.10.2009. Thereafter, the First Defendant had executed a Sale Deed, dated 1.10.2009 in favour of the Second Defendant in respect of the Suit property. According to the Plaintiff, since already he had cancelled the Power of Attorney which was given in favour of the First Defendant and the said fact was informed to the First Defendant through a Registered Letter, dated 26.9.2009, the said Sale Deed, dated 1.10.2009 will not bind upon him. Accordingly the Plaintiff had valued the Suit as follows:

"For declaration 30 times of kist Rs. 1.50; half Rs. 0.75. As per Section 25(b) the amount is at Rs. 75.50. As per Section 27(c), the notional value at Rs. 1,000, Court-fee paid Rs. 75.50; total Court-fee paid at Rs. 151."

5. The case of the First Defendant is that in pursuance of the Power Deed, dated 14.8.2004, he entered into a Sale Agreement with the Second Defendant on 25.10.2006 and based on the said Sale Agreement, he executed the Sale Deed, dated 1.10.2009 in favour of the Second Defendant without knowledge of the alleged cancellation of the said Power Deed and hence, mere seeking declaration that the said Sale Deed will not bind upon him is not sufficient and that the Plaintiff should have filed the Suit for cancellation of the said Sale Deed by paying the Court-fees under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.

6. The Petitioner/First Defendant had filed an Application in I.A. No. 330 of 2011 in O.S. No. 16 of 2011 under Order 14, Rule 1 of CPC to decide the issue whether the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, is having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Trial Court had allowed the said Application by the Order, dated 29.6.2011. Challenging the said Order, the First Respondent/Plaintiff had filed a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD) No. 338 of 2011 before this Court and this Court, while dismissing the said Civil Revision Petition by the Order, dated 4.8.2014, had directed the Trial Court to decide the P