Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

• The petitioner filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain sale and settlement deeds are null and void, and also for a permanent injunction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The suit was returned by the court on the ground that it lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter (!) (!) .
• The petitioner argued that the total value of the suit is Rs.1,11,06,866/- and that the District Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case based on the value of the subject matter (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The petitioner paid court fees based on the valuation of Rs.5,000/- under Section 25(d) and Rs.1,000/- under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, as the suit did not seek cancellation of the documents but only a declaration of nullity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The petitioner is a third party to the documents in question and is not a party to the sale deed, thus the suit is appropriately valued under the relevant provisions for declaration suits (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The suit's valuation and the court fee paid are consistent with the legal requirements for such declarations, and the valuation aligns with the jurisdictional limits of the District Court as per applicable laws (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The court emphasized that the suit should be numbered and proceeded with in accordance with law, given that the valuation and court fee are proper, and the court has jurisdiction over the matter (!) (!) (!) .
• The court directed the Registrar to return the original papers to the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari, and ordered the suit to be numbered and further proceeded with (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.

CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 09.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023

Ghertline Pregibha

... Petitioner

Vs

1.Eveline Pregitha Reginald

2.Prema Chellam @ Prema Reginald

@ Annalin Prema

3.Dhinesh David

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order

dated 29.11.2022, passed by the Principal District Judge,

Nagercoil in unnumbered original suit in OS.No. Of 2022 and

further for a direction directing the Principal District

Judge, Nagercoil to number of the original suit and proceed

and pass orders on merits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

ORDER

This Civil revision Petition is filed as against the

docket order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Learned Principal

District Judge, Kanyakumari in Unnumbered Original Suit in

OS.No. Of 2022.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023

2.The petitioner has presented a plaint seeking for a

declaration to declare the sale deed dated 02.02.2021 which was

registered before the Sub Registrar, Kanyakumari and the

settlement deed dated 17.03.2022, registered before the

Sub Registrar, Rajakkamangalam as null and void and also for a

permanent injunction. But the plaint was returned that the court

is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the

plaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has filed the suit for a declaration to declare the

sale deed dated 02.02.2021 and the settlement deed dated

17.03.2022 as null and void. The entire value of the suit is

Rs.1,11,06,866/-. Since the petitioner is not a party to the

said documents, she sought a relief of declaration to declare

the said documents as null and void. As per Section 25(d) of the

Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, whether the subject-matter of the

suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on

the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or

on Rupees five thousand, whichever is higher. Since the plaint

filed by the petitioner falls under category specified under

Section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, the petitioner

has computed the Court fee by valuing the suit as Rs.5,000/- and

and valued the suit as Rs.1,000/- as per Section 27(c) of the

Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and accordingly paid the Court fee.

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023

4.The learned Counsel further submits that as per Section

12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, the District Court is

having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However

without considering the same the court returned the plaint on

the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned counsel for

the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kamaleshwar Kishore singh V.Prasanth Singh,

reported in 2001(4)CTC 764(sc)in support of his contention.

5.This court considered the submissions made by the Learned

Counsel for the Petitioner.

6.The petitioner has filed the above suit to declare the

sale deed dated 02.02.2021 and settlement deed dated 17.03.2022

as null and void and also for permanent injunction. Accordingly

she has paid the court fee under section 25(d) and 27(c) of the

Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The Court has returned the plaint

that the court is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction.

The petitioner claims that the total value of the suit is

Rs.1,11,0,866/- and as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil

Courts Act, the District Court is having the pecuniary

jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)No.10 of 2023

7.It is relevant to refer to a few decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, which are discussed

herein. The Hon'ble Su