Scope and effect of notification issued u/s 9.

This revision petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.509 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Udumalpet, is against the Order of the District Munsif as regards the Court-fee payable on the plaint and raises for consideration the proper construction of the notification of 1st November, 1943, issued by the High Court under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act as regards suits for injunction in relation to immovable property.

The notification is in these terms:

" In suits for injunction where the relief is sought with reference to any immovable property on the ground that the defendant denies title of the plaintiff to the property and disturbs or threatens plaintiff’s possession thereto, the value of the subject-matter of the suit shall not be less than half the value of the immovable property calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (v) of section 7 of the Court-Fees Act of 1870.

The question for consideration in the revision is Whether the plaintiff has to value the suit in accordance with this notification. The allegations in the plaint are that certain immovable properties were purchased by the father of the plaintiff from the defendants on 13th August, 1947, under a registered sale deed and that ever since the date of the purchase the plaintiff’s family had been in enjoyment thereof. The plaint goes on to say that the plaintiff’s father having died a few weeks before the date of the suit, the defendants, taking advantage of the plaintiff’s youth were threatening to tresspass upon the suit properties and disturb his enjoyment. He therefore prayed that a permanent injunction might issue preventing the defendants from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the suit properties. He valued the relief under section 7(iiv)(d) of the Court-fees Act at Rs.10 and paid a court-fee of Re.1-2-0 on the basis of this valuation.

In their written statement the defendants denied the plaintiff’s title to the properties and also raised for the consideration of the Court whether the suit was properly valued. On this latter contention an additional issue No.6 was framed and the learned District Munsif held that the suit had to be valued in accordance with the notification, and had directed the appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the property. It is against this finding of the learned District Munsif that this revision has been filed by, the plaintiff.

The reasoning by which the learned District Munsif reached his decision against the plaintiff was that as the suit was admittedly one for a permanent injunction it fell within section 7 (iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act under which Court-fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The relief sought was with reference to immovable property and therefore this condition of the notification was also satisfied. The only question that remained related to the other condition required before the notification could apply, namely:

" that the relief of injunction should be sought on the ground that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the property and disturbed or threatened to disturb plaintiff’s possession".

The plaintiff had averred that the defendants were threatening to disturb his possession and enjoyment. The question therefore narrowed down to this, viz., whether that portion of the notification which refers to the relief being sought on the ground that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the property was satisfied or not. In dealing with this the learned District Munsif referred to the written statement filed by the defendants in which they attacked the reality of the sale to the plaintiff’s father alleging that this was benami for themselves. From this he drew the inference that the substance of the suit was one in which the plaintiff was seeking the relief of injunction on the ground that the defendants attacked his title. He was conscious that there was no allegation in the plai