O R D E R

The order under challenge in the present revision is for rejection of the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11(b)

of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the real value of the suit property is more than Rs.6 Crores and as such, the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai may not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the valuation of the suit is distinct for the purpose of payment of Court fees and for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. By relying upon the judgment of Privy Council reported in [1918 AIR (PC) 188 – Rachappa Subrao Jadhav Deta v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav Desai], the learned counsel submits that the notional value of the property cannot displace the real value for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. He would also reply upon the judgments of the other High Courts reported in (i) AIR 1932 ALL 413 – Inayat Husain v. Bashir Ahmad and another (ii) AIR 2002 CHHATTISGARH 7 – Bhupendra Singh Babara and another v. Municipal Council, Ambikapur and another and (iii) AIR 1940 Cal 375 – Iswar Chandra Saha and another v.

Chulo Garo and others on the same lines.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 05.01.2007 made in C.R.P (PD) No.937 of 2006 in the case of K.Chinnathurai V.

Allimuthu and others and submitted that when the plaintiff is not a party to the document sought to be canceled, the proper valuation would be under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and as such the City Civil Court would have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was not a party to the cancellation deed and subsequent settlement deed which is sought to be canceled in the instant suit. In very many decisions of this Court, it has been held that when the plaint averments reveals that the plaintiff was not a party to the document which is sought to be canceled, the valuation of the said suit would be under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and it is not necessary to value the suit property under Section 40(1) of the Act. By relying upon various judgments on the proposition, this Court had an occasion to decide the issue. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of K.Chinnathurai (cited supra), the relevant portion of the said order in paragraphs 9 to 18 reads as follows:

“9. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the decision in Ponnammal v. Kanthammal, wherein the Full Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1940 Mad 113 has been followed. The said decision is to the effect that a person who is not a party to a decree or a document is not bound to sue for its cancellation. In fact, it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation. It is also held that the relief which the plaintiff asked could be given without a cancellation of the document and therefore she was not required to pay court fee for the cancellation of the document.

10. So also in AIR 1956 Mad 179 (In re Thirupathiammal, this Court held that the plaintiff not being a party to the sale deed and the plaint allegations being to the effect that the sale deed is a sham transaction, the plaintiff need not pray for cancellation of the document. Prima facie third parties are not bound by a document of the description in question and are not obliged to sue for cancellation. They can ignore the document and ask for the appropriate relief that they may be entitled to on that footing and pay the proper court fee thereon without asking cancellation.

11. In 1995 (2) LW. 880 (Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and 2 Ors. s. A.Radhakrishnan and 4 Ors.) this Court held t