Judgment :- This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 05.08.96 made in C.M.A.No.13/95 on the file of the District Judge, Ooty (arising out of O.S.No.363/93, District Munsif, Coonoor), confirming the order of return of the plaint in O.S.No.363/93. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that;- The Defendants have entered into an agreement of sale with the Plaintiff on 29.12.92 and the Defendants had delivered the possession of the suit property for the purpose of development and the Plaintiff has also submitted a building plan to the Bairnatty Panchayat. According to the Plaintiff, he had also dug a well in the suit property by spending over Rs.40,000/-. Stating that the Defendants are trying to disturb his possession and that the Defendants had declared that they will not go by the agreement and to restrain the Defendants from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff's possession or developmental activities in respect of the suit property, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and the Plaintiff has notionally valued the suit as Rs.400/- and paid the Court fee of Rs.30.50. 3. The Defendants have resisted the suit inter alia contending that the Court fee ought to have been paid under Section 42(a) of the Act and not under Section 27(c) of the Act and that the suit has been deliberately under valued without taking into account the building. According to the Defendants, the suit would be worth more than Rs.52,00,000/- 4. Referring to the judgments reported in 1984 II MLJ 45, 1969 II MLJ 412 and AIR 1973 SC 2384 the District Munsif, Coonoor has held that though the suit is filed for Permanent Injunction, the suit is really one for Specific Performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 29.12.92. It was held that the suit is not properly valued and if the suit is properly valued, the District Munsif Court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction and the learned District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation in proper Court. Challenging that Order of return of the plaint, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed C.M.A.No.13/95 before the District Judge, Nilgiris. It was held that the suit is not properly valued and if the suit is properly valued, the District Munsif Court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction and the learned District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation in proper Court. Challenging that Order of return of the plaint, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed C.M.A.No.13/95 before the District Judge, Nilgiris. The Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the District Munsif, Coonoor and dismissed the appeal granting one month time to the Plaintiff for presenting the plaint in the proper Court. Against which the present Revision Petition has been filed. 5. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has submitted that the Petitioner has not sought for Specific Performance but only prayed for Permanent Injunction and while so, the Court below erroneously held that the suit is not maintainable before the District Munsif Court. It is further submitted that the Courts below erred in holding that the plaint is camouflaged so as to bring the relief within the purview of District Munsif Court. 6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has also submitted that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has spent huge amount in preparing lay out, for digging well and for improving the property and that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has to be given an opportunity to pursue the suit for Permanent Injunction. 7. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Defendants has submitted that though the suit has been worded as the suit for Permanent Injunction, what is sought for is only a relief of Specific Performance and the Courts below had rightly returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. Drawing the attention of the Court to the prayer in the plaint, the learned counsel for the Defendants further submitted that the prayer of the Plaintiff would show only that the Defendants are in possession of the suit property and while so the Plaintiff has deliberately filed the suit for Permanent Injunction falsely stating as if he is in possession of the suit property. 8. I have carefully examined the materials on records and considered the submission of both parties. On the basis of the agreement dated 29.12.92, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction. 8. I have carefully examined the materials on records and considered the submission of both parties. On the basis of the agreement dated 29.12.92, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction. The prayer of Permanent Injunction sought for in the Plaint is as under;- “A Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their relations, servants, agents and men from interfering in any manner with the Plaintiff's possession or developmental activities in respect of the property described in the Schedule below which the Plaintiff is obliged to carryout as per the agreement dated 29.12.92 executed between the Parties and also restraining the Defendants from alienating, encumbering and/or otherwise parting in any manner the property described in the schedule below except in compliance with the provision of the agreement dated 29.12.1992 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.” Even by a cursory reading of the above prayer, it is seen that though the suit has been worded as suit for Permanent Injunction, what is sought for is only 'Specific Performance'. In the first part of the prayer, the Plaintiff has sought for “. . . that the Plaintiff is obliged to carryout as per the agreement dated 29.12.92 executed between the parties”. By the sentence, the Plaintiff only seeks a prayer that the Defendants ought to carryout their obligations as per the agreement dated 29.12.92. In the second part of the prayer the Plaintiff has sought for “. . . restraining the Defendants from alienating, encumbering and or otherwise parting in any manner alienating the property described in the schedule, except in compliance with the provisions of the agreement dated 29.12.92 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.” The aforesaid sentence clearly shows what has been indirectly sought for is only the compliance of the agreement of sale and restraining the Defendants from in any manner dealing with the property described in the schedule, except in compliance with the provisions of the agreement dated 29.12.1992 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the property except in compliance of the agreement. The Plaintiff indirectly seeks enforcement of suit agreement of sale. 9. The case on hand is a typical example as to how astuteness can be employed in drafting the plaint and such astuteness will not preclude the Court from looking at the substance of the relief asked for. 10. The Plaintiff indirectly seeks enforcement of suit agreement of sale. 9. The case on hand is a typical example as to how astuteness can be employed in drafting the plaint and such astuteness will not preclude the Court from looking at the substance of the relief asked for. 10. In AIR 1973 SC 2384 Shamsher Singh V. Rajinder Prashad, the Supreme Court has held that in a suit filed by son though couched in declaratory form in substance for setting aside decree or for consequential relief of injunction, the court fee payable is ad-valorem under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. Further the Supreme Court in the said case has held as under;- “The Court in deciding the question of court-fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for.” 11. Or.7 R.11 CPC requires the Court to return the plaint if the relief claimed is undervalued. Or.7 R.11 CPC reads as follows:- “The Plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;” 12. In 1980 1 SCC 616 Meenakshisundaram Chettiar V. Venkatachalam Chettiar the Supreme Court in para 7 has held as under;- “7 . . . …… This Section casts a duty on the Court to reject the plaint when the relief claimed is undervalued. If on the materials available before it the Court is satisfied that the value of relief as estimated by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts is undervalued the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is therefore necessary that the plaintiff should take care that the valuation is adequate and reasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case. In coming to the conclusion that the suit is undervalued the Court will have to take into account that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after the taking of the accounts. In coming to the conclusion that the suit is undervalued the Court will have to take into account that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after the taking of the accounts. If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable. The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately undervalue the relief. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a decision in Chillakuru Chanchuram Reddy v. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy, after elaborate consideration of the case law on the subject has rightly observed there must be a genuine effort on the part of the plaintiff to estimate his relief and that the estimate should not be a deliberate underestimation.” By returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, the Court below has only discharged their duty under Or.7 R.11 CPC and the Plaintiff cannot challenge the same. Whether the relief prayed for is camouflaged to make it appear different, the Court has a duty to take into account the entirety of the pleadings. 13. In AIR 1984 MLJ 45 Mahaverchand V. Town Panchayat, Sriperumbudur Justice T. Sathiadev (as his Lordship then was) held thus;- “By astute drafting, the real relief prayed for may be camouflaged as to make it fall under a different section, so that lesser court-fee may become payable. But a Court must be guided by the substance of the relief asked for by taking into account the entirety of the pleas raised and reliefs prayed for in the plaint. If the Plaintiff is to succeed in securing a declaration that the demand in the instant case under the assessment is invalid or unenforceable the liability on his part to pay the amount would be avoided by him. It is because of the said demand made, the suit was filed and according to the plaintiff, it formed the cause of action for filing the suit. It is precisely this much of the demand which he wants to avoid by instituting the suit. Hence, in effect, to cancel the assessment made the suit is filed. It is because of the said demand made, the suit was filed and according to the plaintiff, it formed the cause of action for filing the suit. It is precisely this much of the demand which he wants to avoid by instituting the suit. Hence, in effect, to cancel the assessment made the suit is filed. This is not a suit wherein the relief is not capable of valuation, particularly when the plaintiff unhesitatingly stated that the cause of action was in respect of the demand made for payment of Rs.15,649.20 covered by the assessment.” 14. Insisting upon the duty of the subordinate Courts in verifying the plaints for proper valuation and collecting proper Court fee; and referring to the tendency of filing the suits relating valuable properties under Section 27(c) of the Act, in the decision reported in 2003 CTC (4) 268 Solaiammal (Died) V. Rajarathinam, I have held as under:- “28. More often than not, most of the valuable claims and money suits relating to valuable properties involving huge market value are filed under Section 27(c) stating “Incapable of Valuation” and notionally valuing the same at Rs.400. This tendency of filing the suits relating to the properties of huge valuation under Section 27(c) need to be arrested. Courts would have to be vigilant in verifying the plaint carefully and with circumspection. Duty cast upon the Subordinate Courts in verifying the plaint and collecting proper Court fee cannot be disowned saying that the Court is bound to accept the plaint averments. Duty is cast upon the Judicial Officers and also the Head Ministerial Officers who are in charge of verifying the plaint with regard to the valuation and the payment of Court fee. 30. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Subordinate Court are to be conscious of their duty in verifying the plaints for proper valuation and collecting proper Court fee, to maintain broad and general correlation between the totality of the fee collected on the one hand and the total expenses of the services on the other is established. 31. Equal amount of duty is cast upon the Advocates and the litigants in properly valuing their suits to augment the Revenue of the State by paying proper Court Fee. 31. Equal amount of duty is cast upon the Advocates and the litigants in properly valuing their suits to augment the Revenue of the State by paying proper Court Fee. The Advocates' litigant publics are to address themselves that the essential part of calculation of Court Fee is to maintain broad and general correlation between the fee collected and the expenses of the services on the other.” 15. Applying the above decisions if we look into the substance of the plaint averments, it is quiet obvious that though the suit has been filed for Permanent Injunction, what is sought for is only a Specific Performance in an indirect manner. According to the Respondents/Defendants, the suit property is more valuable and the value of per cent is Rs.20,000/- even in the year 1993. The suit property is comprising of 2.60 acres and even without taking into account the building, the value of the land alone will be more than Rs.52,00,000/- even in the year 1993. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff cannot evade payment of the Court fee by camouflaging the suit so as to bring it as the suit for Permanent Injunction and notionally valuing the same under Section 27 (c) of the Act at Rs.400/- 16. Taking into consideration of the averments in the Plaint and considering the substance of the averments, the Court below has rightly returned the plaint for presentation to the Proper Court. 17. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of law calling for interference. This Civil Revision Petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.