The relief sought in the plaint and the plaintiff's title to the management and possession of the property should be considered in computing the court-fee.

( 1 ) THE question that requires determination in this Civil Revision petition is whether the court-fee paid by the respondent-petitioner herein is according to law.

( 2 ) A suit was instituted by Sardaruddin, the respondent herein, against the petitioner Rahman Khan wth the averment that he is the hereditary servant of a jagirdar, viz. , Sultan Saif Nawaz Jung. The jagirdar has left considerable property in Hyderabad. The petitioner as hereditary servant of the jagirdar is managing and looking after the properties. The dispute is particularly in respect of one building known as " Saif Gulshan". The averment is that, a part of the building has been leased out by the plaintiff to certain persons for a period of five years. The defendant-petitioner claiming to be the General Power Attorney on behalf of the jagirdar is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff denying his right to manage the properties and attempting to usurp the properties and the amount in deposit in the name of the jagirdar. The suit is, therefore, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff s possession and management of Saif Gulshan and from recovering any amount payable by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the legal heir of the late jagirdar.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that the court-fee paid is insufficient as the property is worth lakhs and the valuation has been shown voluntarily at Rs. 300. The lower Court thereupon framed an issue as to the adequacy of the court-fee paid and on a consideration of the argument advanced on either side, came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 26 (c) of the andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act are applicable. In that view it held that the suit has been properly valued and court-fee paid is sufficient. It is against this order that a revision petition has been filed as it pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that having regard to the relief claimed the provisions of section 26 (a) of the Act were attracted. The alternative argument is that, even if section 26 (c) of the Act is applicable, the trial court did not value the relief as it should have done under the said provision. Section 26 (a) reads as under :- "in a suit for injunction - (a) where the relief sought relates to any immovable property, and where the plaintiff s title to the property is denied, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees two hundred, whichever is higher. (b) * * * * * (c) in any other case. whether the subjct-matterof the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. " in the instant case, the suit is valued voluntarily at Rs. 300 under section 26 (c) of the Act.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the property Saif Gulshan is worth more than a lakh. The advantage which would accrue to the plaintiff if he succeeds in the suit is no doubt in respect of this property, but in computing the court-fee this may not be a relevant consideration. It is always the relief which is sought in the plaint that has to be taken into consideration in computing the court-fee. In the instant case, according to the facts stated in the plaint and the relief sought the plaintiff-respondent s title to the management of the property and possession of the suit property is denied.

( 6 ) AN injunction is sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff s possession and management of the property. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the plaintiff s title to the property is not in dispute and therefore section 26 (a) of the Act is not applicable.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to him the above title specifically refers only to the building and has no reference to possession or management of the property.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document