Judgment :- The plaintiff in the suits O.S.No.195 and 196 of 1994 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner. Both the revision petitions have been directed against the common judgment dated 31.3.2000 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry made in the above suits with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the payment of court fees relating to the reliefs of (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) claimed in O.S.No.196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) claimed in O.S.No.195 of 1994. 2. Both the suits have been filed by one Prof.P.K.Chidambaram as the President of the Residents Welfare Association representing the Owners and Residents of HIG Units and MIG Units of Pondicherry Housing Board, Lawspet, Phase II seeking several reliefs, viz., 7 in number for declaration that the contents of Clauses 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed application form of defendant Board as also clauses 14, 22, 25, 29 and 30 of the Hire Purchase Building Scheme Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as between the allottees of both units and the defendant Housing Board are void, ab-initio, inoperative and non-est in the eye of law and consequential permanent injunction from enforcing the said clauses; for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to demand and question the accounts leading to repeated enhancements of the price of the units allotted to the members of the plaintiffs and for consequential direction to submit the accounts of the scheme; for declaration that the letter of the defendant Housing Board dated 21.1.1994 demanding amounts from all the members of the plaintiff association is void, ab-initio and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential permanent injunction from enforcing the said letter and for declaration that the total cost and price of the houses of individual allottees of the plaintiff association is as declared by the defendant Housing Board to them at the time of delivery of possession of the respective houses in 1988 and for mandatory injunction. 3. Both the suits were resisted that both the suits are not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and if valued properly, the District Munsif Court may not have jurisdiction, besides several other contentions. 4. Both the suits were tried together and the evidence was recorded in O.S.No.195 of 1994. 3. Both the suits were resisted that both the suits are not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and if valued properly, the District Munsif Court may not have jurisdiction, besides several other contentions. 4. Both the suits were tried together and the evidence was recorded in O.S.No.195 of 1994. The plaintiff P.K.Chidambaram examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-30. On the side of the defendant Housing Board its Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer Mr.Spurgeon Gnanamutham was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-43 were marked. At the time of trial, the defendant Pondicherry Housing Board filed I.A.Nos.4964 of 1994 and 4965 of 1994 to try preliminary issues 1 to 5, in which an order was passed on 13.3.1995 by the trial Court. In the Civil Revision Petition preferred against that order, as per order dated 6.2.1996 made in C.R.P.Nos.1635 and 1636 of 1995, this Court directed the trial Court "To take up all the Issues together for trial and decide Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 first and then proceed further in deciding the other Issues. Both parties are at liberty to let in oral and documentary evidence in order to substantiate their respective contentions. If on evidence the court below comes to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable or proper court fee is not paid or the said court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the court may pass order accordingly. Both parties are at liberty to let in oral and documentary evidence in order to substantiate their respective contentions. If on evidence the court below comes to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable or proper court fee is not paid or the said court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the court may pass order accordingly. If, on the other hand, the court decides that the said court has pecuniary jurisdiction and also the suit at the instance of the present plaintiff is maintainable, the court may proceed to decide the other Issues and give a finding on all Issues on merits and in accordance with law." Therefore, in accordance with the direction of this Court, the Issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 were tried as preliminary Issues by the trial Court and in recording finding in Issue No.1 as to "whether the District Munsif Court has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit", found that in respect of the reliefs (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) in O.S.No.196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) in O.S.No.195 of 1994, the court fees paid under Section 25(d) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1972 in both the suits are incorrect and the court fee is payable under section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and since there are 30 members in the HIG Category, the total value of 30 HIG Category houses would come to Rs.40,50,600/- and since there are 120 members in the MIG Type-II Category, the total value of 120 MIG Type-II Category houses would come to Rs.64,39,200/- and thus the total cost of the value is Rs.1,04,89,800/- for which value in both the suits, the court fee is payable and if so, the District Munsif Court will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try both the suits and therefore in answering the issue Nos.1 and 2 accordingly ordered to return the plaint in both the suits directing to present them before proper Court after paying the deficit court fee under Section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act on or before 28.4.2000. Such common order in both the suits is under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions. 5. Such common order in both the suits is under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and that both the suits subject matter of these Civil Revision Petitions are not valued correctly and correct court fee has not been paid, is incorrect and the court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for the declaratory relief sought for is correct, in that the title of the houses are not questioned, but adjudication relates only to intangible rights concerning such houses. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the trial Court has misdirected itself in finding that the court fee is payable under section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act in respect of the reliefs (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) in O.S.No.196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) in O.S.No.195 of 1994. The learned counsel further pointed out that only the clauses 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed application form of defendant Board as also clauses 14, 22, 25, 29 and 30 of the Hire Purchase Building Scheme Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as between the allottees and the defendant Housing Hoard alone has been questioned as well the letter of the Housing Board dated 21.1.1994. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the following decisions:- (1) Smt.S.B.Husain and another - vs. - The Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Unit, TNEB, Vaniambadi, Tirupattur and others reported in 1993-II The Madras Law Journal Reports 142, in which this Court has held:- "In a case, where declaration sought for is with regard to a right which is an intangible one, the court fee is under section 25(d) of the Act. Even in a case where the relief of declaration prayed for, if granted, would have the effect of nullifying the demand made under the impugned proceedings, it would be unnecessary for the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount mentioned in the impugned order or proceedings, in respect of which declaratory relief is sought for." (2) Tmt.Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and 2 others – vs. - A.Radhakrishnan and 4 others reported in 1996(1) CTC 55 , in which, this Court has held:- "Instrument for purpose of section 40 should be one which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or, extinguish or declare, assign such interest right or title. Court fees should be paid only under Section 25(d) and Section 40 does not govern and apply to suits where prayer is for declaration that agreement has been created fraudulently and such agreement is invalid and not binding." (3) M.Shahul Hameed – vs. - Kanda Iyer and another reported in 1967(II) The Madras Law Journal Reports 536, in which this Court has held at page 537:- "Section 25(d) would apply where no investigation is necessary regarding the title of the property but the adjudication relates to intangible rights concerning such property." 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent Housing Board vehemently contended that inasmuch as the reliefs sought for is being declaratory in nature and touching the title of the property and with regard to the value of the houses allotted to the members of the plaintiff, court fee is payable under Section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, taking into consideration of the total value of the houses allotted to the members of the plaintiff association and the total amount each individual bound to pay as per agreement entered by them separately to the Pondicherry Housing Board. 7. 7. As per the plaint in O.S.No.196 of 1994, the prayer Nos.(i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) are declaratory reliefs, viz., (i) to declare that the contents of Clauses 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed Application Form of 1st defendant Board as also Clauses 14, 22, 25, 29 and 30 of the Hire Purchase Building Scheme Lease -cum-Sale Agreement as between plaintiff and 1st defendant Housing Board are void, ab-initio, inoperative and non-est in the eye of law, (iii) to declare that the plaintiff herein is entitled to demand and question the accounts leading to repeated enhancements of the price of the units allotted to its members and consequently directing the 1st defendant to submit the Accounts of the Scheme, (iv) to declare that the 1st defendant's letter in No.PHB/E.W.3/Final cost/L.pet-II/93, dated 12.1.94 demanding amounts from all the members of plaintiff association is void, ab-initio and non-est in the eye of law, (vi) to declare that the total cost and price of the houses of individual allottees of plaintiff association is as declared by the 1st defendant board to them at the time of delivery of possession of the respective houses in 1988. In O.S.No.195 of 1994 similar declaratory reliefs are sought for as per relief Nos.(i), (ii), (iii) and (v) which almost similar as in the suit O.S.No.196 of 1994. 8. Clause 24 of the prospectus as extracted in the trial Court judgment:- "The Pondicherry Housing Boards decision in fixing the sale price of each building is final and the allottee shall not be entitled to question the prices so fixed." 9. The trial Court has taken up the value of the HIG Houses as per intimation sent under Ex.A-9 dated 10.7.1986, i.e. the cost of the HIG House is Rs.1,35,020/- and the cost of MIG type-II house is Rs.53,660/- in view of the intimation sent under Ex.A-8 dated 15.7.1986. Therefore, the trial Court has observed that since the plaintiff association wants to declare the above said clause as void and ab-initio, both the suits have to be valued in respect of the value of all the houses of the members of the plaintiff association under HIG type as well under MIG type-II as per Exs.A-9 and A-8. 10. Therefore, the trial Court has observed that since the plaintiff association wants to declare the above said clause as void and ab-initio, both the suits have to be valued in respect of the value of all the houses of the members of the plaintiff association under HIG type as well under MIG type-II as per Exs.A-9 and A-8. 10. As regards the third, fourth and sixth reliefs are concerned, since it is prayed to declare that the cost of the houses so far paid by the members of the plaintiff association are correct and mainly the reliefs sought for being for declaration of the plaintiff association members title over the property, according to the trial Court, the court fee is payable for the said reliefs also for the total cost of houses in two types as per Exs.A-8 and A-9. 11. In both the suits, the plaintiff association is challenging the above said Clauses 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed Application Form of the 1st defendant Housing Board as also Clauses 14, 22, 25, 29 and 30 of the Hire Purchase Building Scheme Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as between plaintiff and the 1st defendant Housing Board. The title of the houses which have been allotted to the members of the plaintiff association is not disputed and challenged, as such, the adjudication only relates to the intangible rights concerning the said houses and in fact they are only challenging the sale price of the houses time and again and about the Clause that they cannot question the price so fixed. 12. In both the suits, it is clearly stated that the Pondicherry Housing Board assessed the cost of HIG units at Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost of MIG Type-II units at Rs.42,000/-, which according to the plaintiff inclusive of possible increase in cost of materials and labour and in that way more than the actually required cost. Then the prices were increased to Rs.1,27,500/- for HIG units and to Rs.53,000/- for MIG Units. The houses are allotted in 1986. Again the prices were increased to Rs.1,35,000/- for HIG units and to Rs.53,660/- for MIG Units. Thereafter, again in 1987, the defendant Housing Board informed the individual allottees about the delivery of possession and also the enhancement of cost to Rs.1,65,000/- for HIG units and to Rs.70,000/- for MIG-II units. The houses are allotted in 1986. Again the prices were increased to Rs.1,35,000/- for HIG units and to Rs.53,660/- for MIG Units. Thereafter, again in 1987, the defendant Housing Board informed the individual allottees about the delivery of possession and also the enhancement of cost to Rs.1,65,000/- for HIG units and to Rs.70,000/- for MIG-II units. It appears, the respective allottees were also given possession of their houses in 1988 and thereafter there had not been any improvement or development of either the houses or the area. Further, according to the plaintiff in both the suits, again there have been enhancement of cost-price as Rs.2,10,000/- for HIG units and Rs.92,725/- for MIG units. Therefore, in view of such periodical enhancement time and again in fixing the cost-price of the houses so allotted, there have been hardship caused to the allottees, as a result of which, they are unable to get the sale deeds registered. The enhancement of cost-price time and again have been made and claimed by the Pondicherry Housing Board by virtue of the said clauses especially clause 24 and that clause is challenged as void ab-initio as well the related clauses involving intangible rights concerning the houses allotted to the respective allottees of the members of the plaintiff association. Therefore, in declaring such clauses as void ab-initio, they have paid the court fee adopting notional value under section 25(d) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which in the facts and circumstances is correct. 13. No doubt, each allottee has entered into separate contract and the transaction with regard to the each allottee is separate, but in both the suits such allotment and the transaction are not challenged. The allottees put together and jointly as members of the association are only challenging the intangible rights of questioning the arbitrary enhancement of cost-price time and again and periodically by the Pondicherry Housing Board and even after the handing over possession of the said plots as early as in 1988. The allottees are only questioning the above stated clauses with regard to the fixing of sale-price as final by the Pondicherry Housing Board, in that no finality is reached in view of the fact, periodically the cost-price is revised. The allottees are only questioning the above stated clauses with regard to the fixing of sale-price as final by the Pondicherry Housing Board, in that no finality is reached in view of the fact, periodically the cost-price is revised. The revising of sale-price even after handing over the possession of the houses to the respective allottees, which is similar in respect of the type of houses allotted, alone is challenged by the allottees collectively by forming association in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, no separate court fee is payable by each allottee considering the value of the sale-price of the houses allotted to them. Hence, no court fee is payable within the meaning of Section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for the declaratory reliefs of (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) in O.S.No.196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) in O.S.No.195 of 1994 since the declaratory reliefs related to intangible rights concerning the property i.e. to declare the above said clauses, viz., 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed Application Form of the 1st defendant Housing Board as also Clauses 14, 22, 25, 29 and 30 of the Hire Purchase Building Scheme Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as between plaintiff and the 1st defendant Housing Board as void and ab-initio and it is payable only under Section 25(d) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and on the notional value the court fee is rightly paid under Section 25(d) of the said Act. The finding of the trial Court in this regard that court fee is to be paid under section 40(2) of the Act cannot be said to be proper and it is to be set aside. 14. In the result, both Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The finding of the trial Court that the court fee is payable for the reliefs of (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) in O.S.No.196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) in O.S.No.195 of 1994 under Section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose both the suits on all issues by the end of June, 2004.