The question of denial of title for the purpose of determining the valuation of a suit under Section 26(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, should be determined solely with reference to the averments in the plaint.

( 1 ) THE question raised in this revision petition relates to the valuation of the suit and the court-fee payable by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE suit was laid for the grant of an injunction. The question whether the plaintiff has properly valued the suit and the adequacy of the court-fee paid by him, came up for consideration before the District Munsif on the basis of a check slip placed before the Court. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that there is a denial off the title by the defendant and consequently the suit has to be valued under clause (a) of Section 26 of the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the half of the market value of the property. The learned District Munsif observed inter alia that "in the light of the above allegations in the written statement it is clear that the plaintiffs title to the suit property is clearly denied by the defendant. the relief sought by the plaintiff relates too immovable property. I therefore, hold that the provisions of Section 26 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act applies to the facts of the instant case. "

( 3 ) IN this revision petition the contention of the learned counsel for the petition is that the question whether the plaintiffs title to the property is denied should not be decided on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement. The question whether a dispute as to title arises must be considered solely with reference to the averments in the plaint. I think this contention is well founded.

( 4 ) MY attention has been drawn to a decision of Rajagopla Ayyangar, J. in Ponnuswami Gounder v. Sinnan Goundar. (195) 2 Mad LJ 323 = (AIR 1956 Mad 52 ). The learned Judge had to construe the terms of a notification the provisions of clause (a) of Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. The learned Judge observed that two conditions are to be satisfied before a plaint could be held to fall within the scope of the notification; the first is that the suit should be one for an injunction in relation to immovable property restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs possession or enjoyment. The second condition I that it must be possible to the ground on which the defendant is seeking to disturb the plaintiffs possession is on foot of a denial of the plaintiffs title.

( 5 ) THE observations made by the learned Judge in construing the notification made under the Madras Court-Fees Act are apposite in the present case. Unless it can be postulated on the construction of the averments ion the plaint that a denial of the plaintiffs title by the defendant is made the basis of the suit, the case does not attract the operation of clause (a) of Section 26 of the Act. The learned District Munsif is clearly in error in regarding the averments in the written statement as material for determining whether the condition to the denial of the title is made out. If the averments in the written statement are excluded from consideration and the matter is decided with reference to what the plaintiff sets out in the plaint, there can be little doubt that there is no allegation of any denial of title. The suit is in essence one for injunction and it has to succeed or fail on proof of possession. The questions in regard to the title are extraneous and did not fall for consideration. It therefore follows that the case does not attract the operation of clause (a) of Section 26 of the Act

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the observations of the Full Bench in C. C. Reddy v. K. C. Reddy, 1968-2 Andh WR 626 at pp. 629 and 630. I am unable to see how the observations are helpful in the determination of the question raised in this revision petition. it is no doubt true that the learned Judges referred to three stages where the question of court-fee may possibly the considered by a Court. The observations refer to the wide jurisdiction which the Court had in reviewin