ORDER :

P. Rajamanickam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants 3 to 7 against the dismissal of their application in I.A. No. 378 of 2014 in O.S. 41 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode, dated 09.10.2015.

2. The petitioners herein had filed an application in I.A. No. 378 of 2014 in O.S. No. 41 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode, under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "TNCF Act") to decide the valuation of the subject matter of the suit and sufficiency of the Court fee paid on the plaint. The learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, by the order dated 09.10.2015 had dismissed the said application with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners/defendants 3 to 7 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard, Mr. C. Ramaraj for Mr. M. Guruprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 3 to 7 and Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode, to declare the sale deeds vide Doc. Nos. 2145/2013 to 2149/2013, Avalponduri, Sub Registrar Office executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 to 7 are liable to be set-aside as null and void and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He further submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 had valued the relief of declaration under Section 40 of the TNCF Act and as such, they should have paid the Court Fee for the value mentioned in the said documents but, they have valued the plaint by referring to the guideline value maintained by the Sub-Registrar and hence, the petitioners herein had raised objections in their written statement as the relief for declaration has not been properly valued and proper Court Fess has not been paid.

5. He further submitted that the petitioners herein, after filing of the written statement, had filed an application in I.A. No. 378 of 2014 under Section 12(2) of the TNCF Act, to decide the valuation of the subject matter of the suit and sufficiency of the Court Fee paid but, the learned II Additional District Judge, Erode had erroneously dismissed the said application with costs and therefore, he prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, in I.A. No. 378 of 2014 in O.S. No. 41 of 2014 and allow the said application.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention, relied upon the decision in Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna and another, (2010) 5 SCC 622.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs has submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 have asked the relief of declaring the sale deeds as null and void and that being so, the said relief has to be valued by referring to the market value of the suit property and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 had valued the said relief by referring to the guide value maintained by the Sub-Registrar and paid the Court Fee accordingly. He further submitted that the first plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the first defendant for getting the loan of Rs. 3 lakhs under an oral agreement and at that time, the first defendant insisted the first plaintiff to hand over the title deeds and also obtained a document styled as General Power of Attorney deed. He further submitted that the first plaintiff had executed the said Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant only as a security for the loan availed by him, but by misusing the said Power of Attorney, the defendants 1 and 2 had fraudulently executed four sale deeds in favour of all the petitioners herein/defendants 3 to 7 by mentioning