In a suit for injunction with reference to immovable property, where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, the court fee payable is 1/2 of the market value of the property or Rs. 300/- whichever is higher.

Headnote:
COURT FEES - Suit for injunction - Relief sought with reference to immovable property - Plaintiff alleging denial of title - Court fee payable - Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (Rajasthan Act 1 of 1961), Section 26(a).
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Municipal Council and another for a perpetual injunction restraining them from ousting the plaintiffs from possession of their house and land and from causing any interference with their ownership and possession of the same. The Municipal Council resisted the suit on several grounds, including that the land in question was never owned and possessed by the plaintiffs or their alleged predecessor-in-title and that it belonged to the Rajasthan Government and had now legally vested in the Municipal Council. The plaintiffs amended their plaint to clarify that they did not allege that their title to the property was denied.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit fell within the purview of Section 26(a) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, and that the court fee payable on the plaint was 1/2 of the market value of the property or Rs. 300/- whichever is higher. The court further held that the amendments made in the plaint did not alter the nature of the suit and that it could not be said that on account of amendments made in the plaint the plaintiffs do not allege that their title to the property is denied by the Municipal Council.
Issues: Whether court-fee on,1/2 of the market value of the disputed property is payable on the plaint of the suit filed by the respondents against the Municipal Council Udaipur for grant of perpetual injunction to the effect that the defendants may be restrained from ousting the plaintiff-respondents from possession of the property in dispute and from causing any interference with their rights to own and possess it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * For decision of the question relating to the amount of court fee payable on a plaint, the averments in the plaint alone are to be taken into consideration and assumed to be correct. * The Court while deciding such a dispute as to the provision of the Court Fees Act under which a plaint is taxable with fees is neither concerned with the pleas raised in the written statement nor with the maintainability of the suit as framed, nor with the claim which is ultimately capable of being decreed. * In a particular case, the plaint as it is, has to be taken into account without reading into it any thing that is not stated therein.
Final Decision: The court accepted the revision petition No. 52/78 (S.B Civil Revision No 32/78 Municipal Council Udaipur v. Charandas 37 others) and sent the case back to the learned Munsif for decision as to what court fee would be payable on the plaint having regard to the one half value of the subject matter of the suit i.e. the property in dispute. The court dismissed the revision petition No. 59/79 (S B. Civil Revision No. 59 of 1970 Municipal Council Udaipur v. Charandas and 37 Ors.) against the order of the learned Munsif allowing amendment of the plaint.

JUDGMENT

1. - S.B. Civil Revision No. 59/77 by Municipal council Udaipur against Charandas and Ors. and S B Civil revision No 32/78 by Municipal Council Udaipur against Shri Charandas and others are inter connected with each other and do arise out of one and the same suit filed by Shri Charandas and other 37 persons against the Municipal Council Udaipur and Tej singh for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No 1 from ousting the plaintiffs from possession of their house and land in dispute and from causing any Interference with their ownership and possession of the same.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to these two revision petitions may be briefly stated as follows : Shri Charandas & 37 persons instituted a suit against the Municipal Council Udaipur and Shri Tej Singh for grant of perpetual injunction in the court of the learned Munsif Udaipur on 17-4-69. The averments in the plaint were that the plaintiffs owned and possessed 7 Bighas and 15 Biswas of Abadi land in city of Udaipur after purchasing it from Tej singh defendant No 2 vide registered sale deed 18-9-65, a 'kacha' house covered by Kalu has been constructed in the said land and the 'kacha' house also belongs to the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. On 2-8-62 a complaint was lodged against the plaintiffs that they had constructed 'Kot' on the said land Upon this complaint the Chairman Municipal Council Udaipur directed an inquiry to be made into the allegations. The Commissioner and the Revenue Officer Municipal Council Udaipur throughly inquired into the complaint and passed an order that the disputed land did not belong to the Municipal Council. This order was confirmed by the Chairman Municipal Board vide his order dated 5-6-1966 Despite this order the Municipal Council Udaipur caused proceedings to be initiated against the plaintiffs under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act in the Court of Tehsildar Girva for their unlawful dispossession from the land. As the plaintiffs hive been continuously in peaceful possession of the land in question as owners thereof and as the Municipal Council Udaipur is bent upon dispossessing them from is they prayed for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from ousting the plaintiffs from the possession of the disputed land and from causing any interference with their ownership and possession thereof In the alternative the plaintiff, alleged In their plaint that if their title to the land in dispute is not established they hive acquired ownership over it by adverse possession since 1942.

3. The Municipal Council defendant No. 1 resisted the suit of the plaintiffs on several grounds which are enumerated in the written statement filed on its behalf. The main grounds of the defendant No. 1 on which the suit was contested are that the land in question was never owned and possessed by the plaintiffs or their alleged predecessor-in-title and that it belonged to the Rajasthan Government and has now legally vested in the Municipal Council Udaipur. It was further contended that the market value of the land in dispute is not less than six lacs rupees and the plaintiffs ought to have paid court fees on behalf of the value of the land under Section 26A of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the suit if so valued was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif.

4. Upon pleadings of the parties the learned Munsif framed as many as 4 issues in the first instance but later on 15-7-72 he struck another additional issue which reads as follows:

Issue No, 5:-Whether the suit has been instituted on insufficient court fee?

As the aforesaid issue No. 5 was a legal issue, the learned Munsif proceed to decide it in the first instance and heard arguments on it but before he could decide this istue an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiffs which was accepted by him vide his order dated 4-2-1977.Aggrieved by