O R D E R

This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 07.01.2018 passed in O.S.(SR) No.13022 of 2018 by the learned District Munsif, Alandur, wherein the plaint filed by the petitioner / plaintiff was returned for the payment of Court fee Under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Originally, suit has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, before the Principal District Munsif, Alandur, for cancelling the settlement deed, dated 13.06.2016, executed by the petitioner to the respondent and registered as Document No.6448 of 2016, on the file of Sub-Registrar's Office at Pallavaram and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. When the plaint was sought to be filed, the same was returned by the Court below stating that the plaint is returned for paying proper court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The said order reads thus:-

"1. The relief sought for in the suit is a) a Cancellation of the deed of Settlement dated 13.06.2016, registered as Document No.6448 of 2016 n the file of Sub-Registrar's Office at Pallavaram, at Rs.5000/- and a Court of Rs. /- is paid under section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and suit Valuation Act as the Value of the property being the consideration for transfer of property as mentioned in settlement deed is love and affection and is incapable of valuation. b) the relief of Mandatory Injection directing the defendant to return the original title deeds of the suit property which were delivered to him by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the alleged settlement deed dated 13.06.2016, registered as document No.6448 of 2016 on the file of Sub-Registrar's Office at Pallavaram; at of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and suit Valuation Act. c) the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men, agents, servants or any person claiming through them from encumbering, alienating or in any manner dealing with the suit property based on the Settlement dated 13.06.2016, registered as Document No.6448 of 2016 on the file of Sub-Registrar's Office at Pallavaram executed by plaintiff, is valued at Rs.5000/- and the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs.30/- Under Section 27 (c) of T.N.C.F and Suit Valuation Act." 3. Further, the operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

“17. The further stand taken by the plaintiff was that the sale deeds were obtained from him under fraud and hence, 14 suit had been filed for declaration that the sale deeds were not binding on the plaintiff and since the suit was not filed for cancellation of the sale deeds, the defendants could not insist the plaintiff to pay the court fee under section 40 of the Act. The trial Court recorded a find that the sale deeds had been executed by the plaintiff himself and prima facie the sale deeds as invalid, it tanta mounts to seeking cancellation of sale deeds and therefore, court fee payable would be governed by section 40 of the Act. 18. The High Court posted two questions, namely, (i) whether in the suit filed for Declaration that the sale deeds are invalid, Court fee paid under section 25(d) of the Act is incorrect and (ii) whether the impugned order directing the plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act suffers from any infirmity warranting interference. Dealing with the factual matrix, the High Court observed: "Thus, the plaintiff himslef is a party to the sale deed; when the party himself seeks to get rid of the sale deeds in substance it amounts to cancellation of decree. The plaintiff might seek t avoid the Sale Deeds. But, since the plaintiff himself is a party to the sale deeds before he is suing for any relief, the plaintiff must first obtain the cancellation of the Sale Deeds"and again "The word "Cancellation" implies that the persons suing should be a party to the document. Strangers are not bound by the documents and are not obliged to sue for cancellation. When the party to the document is suing, chal