The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of determining the valuation of properties and Court fees payable as preliminary issues, and the need to consider the provisions under Section 12 to 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act in deciding jurisdiction and Court fees.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the District Munisif at Perambalur dated 30-06-2016 in I.A. No. 572 of 2015 in O.S. No. 438 of 2013.

1. The petition is preferred against the fair and decreetal order of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, dated 30.06.2016 in I.A. No. 572 of 2015 in O.S. No. 483 of 2013.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 483 of 2013. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the above suit for the following reliefs:

(a) Pass a preliminary decree of partition by dividing the suit property into six equal shares and allot three such share to the plaintiffs and put the plaintiffs in separate possession in it.

(b) Pass a decree of declaration by declaring the registered settlement deed dated 03.09.2013, Doc No. 4951/2013. S.R.O. Perambalur executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant as null and void.

(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants by restraining them and their men from in anyway encumbering or alienating or in any other manner executing any documents with specific boundary in the suit property.

(d) Pass a final decree by appointing a court Advocate commissioner to effect division of the properties as per preliminary decree.

(e) Awarding cost of the suit.

(f) Pass such other and further relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus renders justice.

3. While so, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed I.A. No. 572 of 2015, in the above suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint. In the said petition the revision petitioner/defendants would submit that the second relief sought in the plaint for declaring the settlement deed dated 03.09.2013 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant as null and void. The above settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in respect of the said property is valued for Rs. 6,45,000/-. Therefore, the value for such relief fixed by the plaintiffs/respondents at Rs. 1,000/- is incorrect. It is submitted that when the document is sought to be cancelled, the Court fee ought to have been paid as per Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, i.e., for the value of the property which is mentioned as Rs. 6,45,000/- as on 03.09.2013 and for which the Court fees ought to have been paid at Rs. 48,750/-. It is further stated that the District Munsif Court, Perambalur has no jurisdiction to maintain the above suit, since the value of the suit properties are more than Rs. 1,00,000/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the above said Court. Therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected.

4. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/respondents in their counter affidavit has stated that on 03.09.2013, the 1st revision petitioner/1st defendant executed a nominal settlement deed in favour of the 4th defendant/3rd revision petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 6,45,000/-. The 1st defendant/1st revision petitioner has no right to execute the said settlement deed. Moreover, the plaintiffs are not parties to the document and the same will not bind the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking the relief to declare of the said settlement deed dated 03.09.2013 as null and void and not claiming the relief for cancellation of the said settlement deed.

5. It is further submitted on the side of the plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant in his written statement admitted that the suit property is ancestral property and the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/6 share. The defendants are questioning the pecuniary jurisdiction only after filing their written statement. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

6. After perusing the records, arguments advanced on both sides, the trial Court dismissed the above petition for rejection of plaint.

7. Aggrieved by this, the defendants 1, 3 a