ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.09.2016 made in I.A.No.977 of 2012 in O.S.No.390 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, thereby dismissing the petition filed for rejection of plaint on the ground of not paying the correct court fees.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents for declaration, declaring that the respondents are the absolute owners of the suit property and declaration that the sale deed dated 24.03.2010 in respect of the suit property as null and void. While pending the suit, the petitioners filed a petition for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the respondents had not properly valued the suit property and the plaint returned of paper insufficiently stamped. It is further stated that the defendants purchased the suit property for valid consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- by registered sale deed. As against the same, the respondents have allegedly claimed that the suit property for consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-, which is illegal. In the valuation column, the respondents hided the value of the suit property which is mentioned 3rd para of the plaint. Allegedly the suit property was purchased for value of Rs.60,00,000/- against their pleadings undervalued the suit property of Rs.9,000/-. It cannot be valued or not assessed the property then only valued under 30 times of kist value of the property.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the suit property is an agricultural land and as such, paid court fee by calculating 30 times of kist value and for the nominal value of the tiled house situated in the property. He further submitted that as per the Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, on failure on the part of the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fee in spite of a direction issued by the Court to pay the same and more over, the valuation of the suit is not an issue involving purely question of law and on the other hand, it is a mixed question of law and fact.

4. In support of his contention he relied upon the Judgment reported in AIR 2010 SCC 2807 in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V. Randhir Singh and Ors, the relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder :-

“Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently, 'A' wants to avoid the sale 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both mat be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If 'A' the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If 'B' who is a non- executant, is in possession and sues for declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the