Judgment :- Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 22.3.2005 made in O.S.No.45 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Learned District Munsif having framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, held an enquiry with reference to the additional issue as to whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the value of the suit property is Rs.1,14,600/- and after hearing both sides, answered the said issue that the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur had jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence the revision. 3. Heard Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. The respondent having served with the notice has neither appeared in person nor through any counsel. Hence his name was printed in the cause list. 4. The respondent's admitted case in the plaint is that even though he had executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,14,600/- in the year 1999, the said document was obtained by the revision petitioner by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation and that therefore the said document is not binding on him. However, he has stated categorically in the plaint that the suit property was worth Rs.10 lakhs including the well valued at Rs.5 lakhs and trees worth Rs.3 lakhs existing in the suit property. 5. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the conclusion arrived at by the court below that the said question of jurisdiction to try the suit has to be decided along with other issues on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side at the time of trial of the suit cannot be upheld for the simple reason that on the basis of the admission made by the respondent in the plaint, the District Munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court is only Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore he has urged that the plaint ought to have been returned by the learned District Munsif for presentation before the proper forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions, V.R. Gopalakrishnan V. Andiammal (2000 (2) C.T.C. 513) and Solaiammal V. Rajarathinam (2003-4-L.W. 698), in support of his further contention that having embarked upon the enquiry in relation to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the additional issue should have been decided on the basis of the plaint averment as a preliminary point before ever the court below assumed jurisdiction to try the other issues on merits on the claim made by both the parties. The relevant principle of law laid down in the decision, 2002 (2) C.T.C. 513 reads as under:- “According to Order 14, Rule 2, the defendant can raise an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction has to be understood both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. If the schedule mentioned property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the court then certainly that court will have no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Similarly, if the value of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, then again that court will have no jurisdiction. In the course of considering a preliminary issue as to whether there is a statutory bar to the suit, Court can record such evidence as parties desire to let in only relation to that issue/aspect.� 7. Similarly, the law relating to the question involved herein is reiterated in the decision 2003-4-L.W. 619 that the question relating to the value of the suit with reference to the court fee and jurisdiction has to be decided as a preliminary issue. It was held therein as follows:- “Under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. determining the question of jurisdiction or statutory bar is discretionary for the court to decide the issue of law as Preliminary Issue or decide it along with other issues raised in the suit. It was held therein as follows:- “Under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. determining the question of jurisdiction or statutory bar is discretionary for the court to decide the issue of law as Preliminary Issue or decide it along with other issues raised in the suit. The delay in filing the application by the defendants 1 to 3, calling upon the court to exercise the discretion in determining the valuation of the suit as the preliminary issue does not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the trial court nor does it render the decision as improper exercise of discretion. Since the question of valuation of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of apparent valuation of the suit is a pure question of law and the trial court has rightly exercised the discretion in determining the question of valuation as the preliminary issue and this point is answered accordingly.� 8. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the decisions cited above and having regard to the admission of the respondent in the plaint itself that the suit property was worth more than Rs.1,00,000/-, this Court finds that the District Munsif Court could not have had any pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and in view of such factual aspect of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Thus, the revision petition allowed with the following direction:- The trial court is directed to return the plaint for presentation before the proper court as the court below does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in accordance with law. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13054 of 2005 is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.