Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Issue No. 2 : "Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?"

9. At the outset, I may mention that the suit was originally filed for seeking relief of possession and permanent injunction but the same was subsequently amended for substituting the relief of possession with the relief of mandatory injunction. The amendments to this effect were allowed vide order dated 15.10.2014. In the amended plaint, plaintiff has sought decree of mandatory injunction for seeking directions against the defendants to hand over the possession of the respective rooms as shown in red and green colour in the site plan of the suit property. Plaintiff has also sought for relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the rooms in their possession. In para 21 of the plaint, plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 16 lacs and for purposes of court fees, the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction has been valued at Rs. 130 each on which fixed court fees of Rs. 13 each has been paid by the plaintiff.

11. From the aforementioned case law, it is clear that for determining the court fee the Court has to read the plaint as a whole to ascertain as to what relief has been actually sought by the plaintiff and nomenclature given to the relief hardly matters. Further, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to escape from his liability to pay appropriate court fee by clever drafting of plaint. As already noted above the suit was intially filed by the plaintiff for the relief of possession and permanent injunction and since an inquiry was raised by the court regarding improper valuation of suit, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amending the prayer clause and substituting the relief of possession with relief of mandatory injunction. But, said amendment are still not going to help the plaintiff as what is to be seen is not the title of the suit but the substantive relief actually sought in the plaint. In the instant case, in the form of mandatory injunction, plaintiff is in effect seeking possession of property, for which he is required to pay the court fee as per the market value of the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to correctly value the suit for the purpose of court fees and pay the requisite court fees thereon.

11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled.

We may refer to them briefly.

11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.