V PADMA @ PAPPA Vs. T R MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 09.01.2015 made in I.A.No.2241 of 2013 in O.S.No.1044 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.

(2.) The first respondent as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1044 of 2013 to cancel the deed of power of attorney dated 09.06.1990 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and also declaring the sale deed dated 27.09.2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and consequently declaring the sale deeds executed by the second defendant in favour of the defendants 4 to 8. The first respondent/plaintiff purchased the property on 01.06.1982, he executed a Power of Attorney on 09.06.1990 and since the Power of Attorney is coupled with interest, he filed a suit for cancellation of Power of Attorney. The first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant, who is none other than his daughter, the defendants 2 and 3 developed the prperty and sold the same in favour of the defendants 4 to 8. Now, the plaintiff/first respondent has filed the suit for cancellation of Power of Attorney and to declare the sale deed in favour of the second defendant executed by the first defendant as null and void and also consequently declare the sale deeds in favour of the defendants 4 to 8 executed by the second defendant as null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 filed an application in I.A.No.2241 of 2013 to reject the plaint on the ground of not disclosing the cause of action and the suit is under valued and barred by limitation. It is submitted that since the plaintiff filed a suit for setting aside the sale deeds alleged to be executed in favour of the second defendant and also defendants 4 to 8, he ought to have valued the suit under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, but the plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and paid the Court fees, which is illegal. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, has dismissed the application. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.