Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ravipudi Bramaramba And Anr. vs Ravipudi Venkateswarulu And Anr. on 1 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(6)ALT243
Author: K.B. Siddappa
Bench: K.B. Siddappa
ORDER K.B. Siddappa, J.
1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in Check Slip No. 3/95 in O.S.No.52/93 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Addanki.
2. A suit was filed for bare injunction stating that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The first defendant is the husband of the first plaintiff and he is managing the family properties and he is merely a custodian and he has not saleable interest in the plaint schedule item Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 2 is the brother's son of the defendant No. 1. When the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No. 2 was seriously attempting to obtain some documents with regard to item No. 2, they got issued a legal notice dt.27-4-.1993. The defendants issued Caveat notice enclosing photostat copies of the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant. When the plaint was presented, the lower Court held that though the main relief is for bare injunction, the question of title has to be gone into necessarily, because the defendants had enclosed photostat copies of the sale deeds to the Caveat notice. That finding is challenged in this Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that (as) the plaintiffs prayed for a bare injunction, the suit cannot be treated as one for deciding title though incidentally. The Court cannot insist for that relief under Section 26(a) of the (Court-Fees) Act. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court in Kondaiah v. Ramanareddy, , wherein it is held that the suit is in essence one for injunction and it has to succeed or fail on proof of possession and that the question in regard to the title is extraneous and did not fall for consideration and it therefore follows that the case does not attract the operation of clause (a) of Section 26 of the Act. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in N.A. Siddiqui v. State of A.P., , wherein it is held, "On a perusal of the averments contained in the plaint, what is clear is that the relief sought for by the plaintiff is not a declaratory one; on the other hand, it is one for injunction. If it is one for injunction, the provisions contained in clause (c) of Section 26 of the Court-Fees Act are directly attracted, in which case, the Court-fee paid on the valuation by the plaintiff is correct, but, the Court below seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the relief of injunction cannot be granted unless a declaration also is granted to the effect that the surety bond has become void. In that context, the Court below proceeded on the footing that the relief of injunction as prayed for shall have to be construed as if it is a consequential relief, the main relief being one for declaration. Incidentally, I find the Court below relying upon provisions contained in Order 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, I do not find that there is any relevance in referring to that provision of law in determining the question raised in this case. We may, instantly note that Section 24 of the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 deals with the subject-matter of 'suits for declaration', whereas Section 26 of the Act deals with the subject-matter of 'suits for injunction.' When it is disclosed in the plaint that the relief is not one for declaration but for injunction only, and the plaintiff has been given the liberty to value the relief and when he sought to bring the case within the purview of clause (c) of Section 26 of the Court-Fees Act, it is not for the Court, at this stage, to go into the question whether the injunction relief could be considered as a consequential relief, the main relief being one for declaration, and as the Supreme Court has observed in the decision referred to heretofore that invariably, in every case where injunction relief is sought for, it may be on the basis that some act or action or activity on the part of the authorities concerned is not warranted by law. But, insofar as any declaration is not sought for in that direction and when the relief was confined exclusively to injunction, as in the case here before me, it is not open for the Court to read something into the section which is not there. If, ultimately it is found, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that the relief of permanent injunction without a declaration cannot be decreed it may be dismissed then, but in the case, as it stands at present, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to have his suit treated as one for declaration, treating the relief for injunction as a consequential one."
4. I have gone through the plaint. The plaintiffs are already, claiming absolute title over the property, and also for possession. Therefore, they prayed for only for a bare injunction. The relief of title cannot be indicated or presumed to have to be decided in this case for the suit of the plaintiffs shall succeed or fail on the evidence for the relief sought for. In the present case, the reliefs of declaration of title are not asked for. In such a case, the Court fee has to be paid only under Section 26 (c) of A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 26(a) of the Act as held in the Check Slip.
5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.