ORDER :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This civil revision petition is arising out of fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 979 of 2015 in OS. No. 194 of 2013 dated 03.07.2017 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram, thereby directed the petitioners to value the suit under Section 40(1) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioners filed petition for amendment to include the prayer of declaration declaring that the partition deed dated 21.01.2013 is null and void. The trial court allowed the petition for seeking amendment and directed the petitioners to value the suit under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act instead of Section 25(a) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a partition deed operates as readjustment of rights between the shareholders in the properties jointly owned by them and therefore the partition deed cannot be construed as a document of the nature envisaged in Section 40 of the said Act for cancellation of which alone the court fees will have to be paid on the value of the property in the document. Therefore, the provisions under Section 25(a) is only applicable and Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not applicable. He further submitted that the petitioners are in joint possession of the suit property and already they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, the partition deed entered between the family members does not create or assign any new rights for the first time among the share holders. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Varadaraja Pillai Vs. Muthusamy Pillai reported in CDJ 1996 MHC 760

(ii) N. Ramachandran Vs. Munisamy and 6 others reported in 1998-2 LW 152

(iii) S. Periasami Vs. Chellammal and another reported in 1980-1-MLJ 46

(iv) Aralappa & etc. Vs. Jagannath & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Karnataka 91

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when the suit is filed for declaration that the suit document is null and void, it should have been valued on the market value on the date of plaint under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. When the document is challenged as void, the relief in substance indirectly amounts to seek for cancellation and therefore, the Section applicable is only under Section 40 of the said Act. As such it is clear that whether it is cancellation of sale deeds or cancellation of partition deeds, it makes no difference and that too when the plaintiff is party to such instrument and when the pleading could establish the intention of the plaintiff to cancel such document only under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is attracted. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following judgments:

(i) M. Panneerselvam Vs. Suseela and others reported in 2017 (2) CTC 309

(ii) J. Vasanthi and others Vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal rep. by LR's and others reported in 2017 (6) CTC 201

(iii) S. Rajasekaran Vs. K. Sargunam reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 696

(iv) J. Shanker Vs. P. Jayabal reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 298

5. Heard, Mr. N. Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and M/s. Elizabeth Ravi, the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and they filed suit for partition as against the respondent herein. While pending the suit, the petitioners filed petition for amendment to include the prayer of declaration declaring that the partition deed 21.01.2013 is void. The court below allowed the petition for amendment and directed the petitioners to value the suit under Section 40(1) instead of Section 25(a) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied