Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by the defendants in the suit O.S.No:109 of 2006 as against the dismissal of the I.A.No:442 of 2006 filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of under valuation of the suit by the plaintiffs. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff, first respondent herein for declaration of the exparte decree dated 21. 2006 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.244 of 2005 as null and void and for permanent injunction retraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property on the averments that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the 5th defendant by a sale deed dated 12. 2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.1.04 crores, that they have been in possession and enjoyment thereof from December, 1996 onwards under a Memorandum of Undertaking entered into with the 5th defendant on 12. 1996, that the defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.255 of 2005 fraudulently in collusion with the defendants 4 and 6 to 9 before the Addl.Sub Court without impleading the plaintiff, that the defendants 1 to 3 obtained ex parte decree fraudulently on 21. 1996 and that they attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff on 1.52006 by taking advantage of the ex parte decree. The plaintiff valued the prayer for declaration relating to the ex parte decree under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, at Rs.1000/= and paid a court fee of Rs.750. He has valued the prayer for injunction under Section 27(c) of the said Act at Rs.4,59,000/= and paid a court fee of Rs.34,4250. 3. While that be so, the revision petitioners, defendants 1 to 3 have filed the I.A., to reject the plaint by alleging that they have obtained delivery of possession of the suit property through E.P.No.55 of 2006 in the said suit, that the plaintiff should seek the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property by valuing the suit under Section 25(a) of the Act, that the suit without such prayer is not maintainable, that the market value of the suit property as per the sale deed dated 12. 2004 is Rs.1.40 crores, that the suit for declaration is to be valued at Rs.70,00,000/= under Section 27(a) of the Act as the title is in dispute and that the trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit if the suit is valued as above. 4. The said I.A., was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter objecting that the plaintiff has traced their title over the suit property by pleadings and documents, that the plaintiff has challenged the fraudulent and collusive decree passed in O.S.No: 244 of 2005 without impleading them as party, that as per the plaint averments, there is no dispute over the title of the suit property, that the provisions contained in Section 25(a) and Section 27(a) are not attracted and that they have correctly valued the suit Under Section 25(d) and 27(c) of the T.N.C.F and S.F. Act. 5. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu on a consideration of the averments of the parties and the submissions of the respective counsels, dismissed the said I.A., holding that since the plaintiff did not challenge the title of the defendants over the suit property and as the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration of title, or recovery of possession as according to them the possession still remains with them, the plaintiff cannot be asked to value the suit property on the market value and pay the court fees under Sections 25(a) and 27 (a) of the said Act. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been preferred by the defendants. 6. The question arise for consideration in this Revision is whether the suit is to be valued under Sections 25(a) and 27(a) of the Court Fees Act or under Sections 25(d) and 27(c) of the Court Fees Act? 7. The very reliefs sought for in the prayer of the Plaint read as follows:- "(i) Declaring that the ex parte deed dated 21. 2006 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate judge, Chengalpattu in O.S.No:244 of 2005 as null and void; (ii) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 9, their men, servants, agents or any other persons claiming under or through them from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff or its nominees of the schedule mentioned property;" 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants is that the real intention of the plaintiff in the suit is for declaration of title since the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendants. To fortify this contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the very averments in the Plaint which reads as follows:- "3. The plaintiff is filing the present suit seeking for a declaration that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu dated 21. 2006 passed in O.S.No.244 of 2005, field by the defendants 1 to 3 herein as null and void and also for a declaration that the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner of the property situate in S.No.282/4 and 282/6 at 141, Kottivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District more fully described in the Schedule herein and for consequential reliefs...." xx xx xx xx xx "17.....Therefore, unless the exparte decree dated 21. 2006 passed in O.S.No.244 of 2005 is set aside and the plaintiff is declared as lawful and true owner of the schedule mentioned property, the threat from defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 will continue. Therefore, the plaintiff is left with no other option than to approach this Honble Court seeking to declare that the exparte decree dated 21. 2006 passed in O.S.No.244 of 2005 as null and void and for a declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful and true owner of the schedule mentioned property. Hence the present suit." 9. From the above pleadings found in the Plaint, it is very clear that the real intention of the plaintiff is to get a declaration of title tot he suit property by setting aside the exparte decree, for which the court fee should be paid under Section 27(a) of the Court Fees Act. 10. In 1959 MLJ 355 , (Gnanambal Ammal Vs. Kannappa Pillai and others) this Court held as follows:- "In order to determine the class under which a suit falls fro purposes of court fee, the substance of the relief as disclosed in the plaint, taken as a whole, should be looked into and not the form of the prayer n which the relief is cast. Kannappa Pillai and others) this Court held as follows:- "In order to determine the class under which a suit falls fro purposes of court fee, the substance of the relief as disclosed in the plaint, taken as a whole, should be looked into and not the form of the prayer n which the relief is cast. A plaintiff cannot be allowed to evade the payment of proper fee or undervalue the suit for purposes of jurisdiction by omitting to ask for a relief when the success of suit depends on the relief being granted to him. The basis of determination of court fee is, of course, the suit as laid in the plaint and not the contentions in the defendants written statement. But when, in the course of the trial, it appears that it is the intention of the plaintiff to interpret his plaint in one way for purposes of court fee and in another way during the trial, it is for the court to construe the plaint and determine what it really asks for, taking into consideration the substance and not merely the form of the relief prayed for." "Where in spite of profuse allegations in the body of the plaint about the deeds being sham and nominal, the relief asked for cannot be granted without the deeds being cancelled or set aside, the suit must be held to be in substance one for cancellation or setting aside of the deeds which are an obstacle to the plaintiffs claim and, therefore, suit would fall under Section 40 of the Madras Act XIX of 1955; and under Section 53 of the Act, the value for court fee would determine the value for purposes of jurisdiction also." 11. In 1979 MLJ (II) page 11 (Kasthuri and others Vs. Seth Ghanshamdas Vonsimal Deva Bank) Justice M.M.Ismail, as he then was observed as follows:- "There can be no doubt whatever that for the purpose of determining the court fee payable it is the substance of the relief that a plaintiff prays for that has to be taken into account and not the technical form of the prayer. Seth Ghanshamdas Vonsimal Deva Bank) Justice M.M.Ismail, as he then was observed as follows:- "There can be no doubt whatever that for the purpose of determining the court fee payable it is the substance of the relief that a plaintiff prays for that has to be taken into account and not the technical form of the prayer. If it is to be otherwise, mere astuteness and ingenuity of the person drafting the plaint will have the effect of not only camouflaging and disguising the real relief which a plaintiff claims in a suit but also nullifying and defeating the provisions of law dealing with the payment of court fee based on the nature of the relief litigants seek in a court of law." 12. In Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and others, reported in 1974 SC page 270, the Honble Supreme Court held that 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. 13. From the decisions referred to above, it is clear that for the purpose of determining the court fee, it is the substance of the relief that the plaintiff prays for has to be taken into account and not the technical form of prayer as held by the Honble Supreme Court and this Court and mere astuteness and ingenuity of the person drafting the plaint will have the effect of not only camouflaging and disguising the real relief which a plaintiff claims in a suit but also nullifying and defeating the provisions of law dealing with the payment of court fee based on the nature of the relief litigants seek in a court of law. 14. The court fee is to be decided not by the mere reliefs found in the prayer column, but by the whole of the plaint averments. What is the requirement and relief sought for by the plaintiff has to be seen by reading the whole plaint and not by seeing the reliefs column alone. Even if there is a hidden relief, which is not mentioned in the prayer and the same is covered by a veil and not invincible, it is the duty of the court to lift or pierce through the veil and find out the real substance of the relief which the plaintiff prays for. Even if there is a hidden relief, which is not mentioned in the prayer and the same is covered by a veil and not invincible, it is the duty of the court to lift or pierce through the veil and find out the real substance of the relief which the plaintiff prays for. As far as this case is concerned, the relief though mentioned in the prayer is for declaration to declare the earlier decree as null and void, but the real intention is for declaration of title to the property. The real intention is exposed in Paragraphs 3 and 17 of the Plaint itself as mentioned earlier. There is also a denial of the title of the defendants to the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is bound to pay the court fee as required under Section 25(a) and Section 27(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act for the reliefs claimed, based on the averments contained in the Plaint. Since the court fee is to be paid as per Sections 25(a) and 27(a) of the Act, the market value of the property, it is for the trial court to decide the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction. 15. In the result, this CRP is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.