1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a prayer for declaration hat the defendants do not have any right to the properties described in the plaint Schedule. Ofcourse the plaintiff also sought for consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.

2. The trial court even before taking the plaint on file returned the plaint for two reasons. The first one is that the negative prayer sought for by the plaintiff will have to be properly couched, as the prayer as such sought for by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The second reason is that the said prayer for declaratory decree shall be valued under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. As there was resistance on the part of the plaintiff, the matter was heard by the trial court and a final order was passed by the Trial Court reiterating the original stand that the prayer as such is not maintainable and that the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiff with respect to the immovable property will have to be valued under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.

3. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Court also having found that the negative declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiff is not maintainable and a declaratory relief properly couched will have to be valued under Section 25(b) of the said Act.

4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "a)Whether the suit claim is based on a family arrangement that had stood the test of time and has been accepted upon by the parties, whether the suit for negative declaration as prayed for is not maintainable. b)Whether valuation of the claim under Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act and payment of Court Fee thereon is not correct."

5. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Silambannan for the respondents.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, a negative declaratory relief has been sought for by the appellant. In other words, the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that the defendants do not have any right to the properties described in the plaint Schedule. Having thus prayed for, the said relief was valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.

7. As per Section 34 of The Specific Relief At, 1963, a declaratory relief can be sought for by a person who is entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property. He shall file a suit only as against a person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right. A discretion has been vested with the Court to grant such a relief of declaration. In case, such a person who could have sought for further relief than a mere declaration of title omitted to seek such further relief, even such a declaratory relief sought for by such person cannot be granted.

8. The appellant herein asserts his right to the subject property in the plaint pleadings. He has also averred to in the plaint that the respondents denied the lawful right of the appellants. Having thus pleaded as per Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act, the appellant should have come out with a positive prayer for declaration of right and title claimed by the appellants. But unfortunately, a negative prayer has been sought for by the appellants in order to evade payment of court fee u/s.25

(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, a negative prayer in such circumstances cannot be sought for by the appellants.

10. In a case where a Bank guarantee is sought to be invoked, the party aggrieved can file a suit for declaration that the defendants are not entitled to invoke t