PARVATHAVARTHINI ALIAS KUPPAMMAL ALIAS RAJI Vs. HEERACHAND SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS above Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants against the fair and decretal order of the learned III Additional district Munsif, Pudhucherry, dated 1. 6. 2005 in I. A. Nos. 1256, 272, 1311, 1447 of 2004 and 3803/2003, 1221/04, 3805/03, 1222, 1327, 1218 of 2004 and 3804/03 and 2226 of 2004 in the respective suits by which the learned District Munsif refused to take up the jurisdictional issue as the preliminary issue.

(2.) THE revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the respective suits. THE plaintiff filed the suits O. S. No. 630, 714, 590 of 2002 and 109, 629 and 108 of 2003 to declare the sales vide sale deeds dated 20. 11. 1998, 3. 9. 1997, 24. 12. 1997, 5. 10. 1998, 15. 9. 1997 and 27. 1. 1998 respectively registered in the District Registrar Office, Pudhucherry as null and void.

(3.) THE plaintiff repelled the contention of the defendants saying that the remedy for specific performance will arise only after disposal of the A. S. No. 320 of 1993 pending before the High Court and further the relief sought for is not for cancellation of sale deed since he is not a party to the sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, since the defendants have executed the sale deeds in violation of the injunction order passed by the court, the plaintiff has filed the suits for declaring the said sale deeds as null and void and therefore Section 25 (d) of the Act alone attracts in respect of payment of court fee. Further even to decide the preliminary issue of court fees, the same requires elaborate evidence on both sides and therefore the same cannot be decided preliminarily.