Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit seeking declaration that a sale deed is null and void, where the plaintiffs are not parties to the document, is to be valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 or under Section 40 of that Act, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected or returned for want of proper court fee or jurisdiction.
Analysis: The valuation of court fee is to be gathered primarily from the plaint averments. Where the plaintiffs are strangers to the sale deed and seek only a declaration that the alienation is void and not binding, the relief is not one for cancellation by a party to the document. In such a case, Section 25(d) applies rather than Section 40, which governs suits for cancellation of decrees or documents by persons who are parties to them. The Court also noted that the question of adequacy of court fee may involve factual questions and, depending on the nature of the dispute, need not always be tried as a preliminary issue. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be allowed merely on the defendant's version when the plaint does not disclose a clear bar to the suit.
Conclusion: The suit was correctly valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and no ground was made out to reject or return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 or Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.