In actions seeking declarations regarding documents, if the essence amounts to cancellation, appropriate court fees must be paid per the statutory provisions.

ORDER :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

1. Challenging the impugned fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.5049 of 2019 dated 15.03.2022 passed by XIX Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Heard and considered rival submissions of learned counsel for revision petitioners and respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No. 5049 of 2019 and the same was filed seeking for the relief of declaration as well as injunction against the defendants 1 to 9 in C.S.No.395 of 2014 and subsequently, the same was transferred to City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S.No.5049 of 2019. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1, 2 and 5 have filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to direct the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs to pay the court fee under Sec.40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. That application was contested by the plaintiffs by filing counter objections. On hearing both sides, the trial judge held that the allegation on the plaint in substance amounts to cancellation of the document. Though the prayer is couched in the form of seeking declaration that the document is not valid and not binding, the relief in substance indirectly amounts to seeking for cancellation of the Sale Deed. Accordingly, the said petition was ordered. Challenging the said findings, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners would argue that the respondents 1, 2 and 5 have sanctioned the loan for an amount of Rs.20 crores to the 1^st petitioner. The 2^nd revision petitioner stood as a guarantor. However, at the time of sanctioning the loan, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents have coerced and unduly influenced the petitioners 1 and 2 to sign in various documents including mortgage deed, guarantee deed, blank cheques, blank papers, blank papers with revenue stamps before revenue office and they never knew about the ulterior motive of respondent that those documents were obtained with an intention to grab the property. He would further submit that when they have fixed exorbitant rate of interest to the outstanding amount, they are not able to repay the amount to them. Taking advantage of that, they have attempted to sell the property for lesser value, however, the revision petitioners have also tried to sell the property in order to settle the issue, but through the mortgage deeds, the bank officials have attempted to auction the property under distress price. Therefore, the suit was filed to declare the schedule documents stand in the name of 6^th respondent as null and void and not binding on them along with prayer for injunction against the respondents 1 to 5. But, the learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that the bank officials as well as all these respondents have charged exorbitant rate of interest of 36%, which is against the norms prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. Therefore, it is a matter for trial to prove the fraud and undue influence and it is tainted with void. Hence, the documents need not be cancelled and declaration relief alone is sufficient. Therefore, she paid the court fee under Sec.25(b) of the Act, which is sufficient. But, the trial judge erroneously without appreciating these legal proposition and facts and circumstances, erroneously allowed the application filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 5 and directed to pay the court fee as per Sec. 40 of the Act, as such is