The plaintiff must seek cancellation of Sale Deeds before claiming they are non-binding, with appropriate court fees payable based on genuine property valuations.

ORDER :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated February 1, 2018, passed in the Memo [Check Slip D.No.1740 of 2017 dated October 5, 2017] in O.S. No.52 of 2016 on the file of 'the Subordinate Court, Mannargudi' ['Trial Court' for brevity and convenience], the plaintiff in the Original Suit has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Case of the plaintiff - Company is that it owns the suit properties vide various Sale Deeds annexed along with the plaint. It executed a General Power of Attorney on August 25, 2011 in respect of suit properties in favour of first defendant. Since the first defendant acted against the terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff and also against its interest, on February 14, 2014, the plaintiff intimated the first defendant that the aforesaid General Power of Attorney is cancelled. The said fact was also intimated to the Sub-Registrar Office on March 12, 2014 through plaintiff's advocate. On March 29, 2014, a Cancellation Deed in respect of the General Power of Attorney was also registered.

3.1. Third defendant is first defendant's son. Third defendant's wife is one Nandhini, who is the director of the second defendant - Company. The defendants 1 and 3 and the said Nandhini colluded together and nominally created the second defendant - Company and further, pursuant to the General Power of Attorney, fraudulently transferred the suit properties in parts through multiple sale deeds in favour of second defendant - Company as well as to defendants 3 to 5. Totally 8 Sale Deeds were fraudulently executed by them. Six of them were executed before the cancellation of General Power of Attorney and two of them were executed after cancellation.

3.2. As per the plaintiff - Company's resolution dated May 14, 2012, suit properties can be sold only after written approval from it. The first defendant acted against the said resolution. Moreover, the Sale Deeds executed by first defendant is against Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 .

3.3. Further, the considerations mentioned in the eight Sale Deeds were never remitted to the plaintiff's account. Hence, the aforesaid Sale Deeds would not bind the plaintiff. Hence the Suit for declaration that the eight Sale Deeds would not bind the plaintiff and consequently, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properties.

4. The plaint was presented in the year 2016, that is to say, before the Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2017 [Act No.6 of 2017], which came into effect from March 1, 2017. As the suit properties are all agricultural / ryotwari lands, the plaintiff - Company valued the Suit’s market value as 30 times the survey assessment on the lands under unamended Section 7 of the ' Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 ' ['T.N.C.F. Act' for short]. Thus, the Suit was valued at Rs.1,10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,250.50/- under Section 25 (b) of T.N.C.F. Act was paid.

5. That being the case of the plaintiff - Company, during the annual inspection by 'the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur' ['P.D.J.' for short] in the year 2016, it was found that the Suit was not properly valued and correct court fee was not paid. Accordingly, the P.D.J. instructed the Trial Court to issue Memo / Check Slip. As instructed, the Trial Court issued Memo which reads thus