PAPPAYEE Vs. R SAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.290 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur and in the suit, she sought for declaration that the sale deed dated 15.07.2013 registered as Doc.No.9956 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar No.2, Karur as null and void among various other reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the defendants/respondents hrein had filed an application in I.A.No.543 of 2016, seeking a direction to the plaintiff for valuation of the suit as Rs.32,99,700/- as per Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, failing which, sought for rejection of the plaint and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court, directing the plaintiff to pay necessary Court Fees with permission to amend the plaint and also to move the plaint through proper forum. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff / petitioner herein is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that she is a rustic villager, aged about 80 and the defendants 1 to 17 had created a sale deed dated 15.07.2013 in favour of the defendants 18 to 41 in the suit, as if she had sold her share in the property. She was misrepresented to believe that the document purported to have been executed by her is nothing, but a supplemental Trust Deed to expand the Trust and her signature was obtained fraudulently. It is the further case of the petitioner that the alleged sale deed was not at all read over to her and based on the representation of some of the defendants, she had affixed her thumb impression on the document, which turned out to be a fraudulent one.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that the documents, namely, the sale deed and lease cancellation were executed without her knowledge and her signatures were obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, the plaintiff need not calculate the value as per Section 40 of the Court Fees Act. It is further stated that when the plaintiff herself had denied execution of the sale deeds, the Court Fee payable could be only under Section 25(d) of the Act and not under Section 40 of the Act. Moreover, she had not received consideration for such execution and as such, the plea of payment of Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act does not arise at all.