R.BANUMATHI, J.

( 1. ) O.S.A. No. 312 of 2011 is preferred against the order in A. No. 2033 of 2011 whereby the learned single Judge declined to frame five additional issues but framed only two additional issues. O.S.A. No. 313 of 2011 is preferred against the order in A. No. 2034 of 2011 in Tr.C.S. No. 948 of 2007 declining to take up the issue of Court fee as preliminary issue.

( 2. ) RELEVANT facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Appellant-Kasi Sah has filed the suit C.S. No. 286 of 2006 on the Original Side of High Court, Madras for partition of "A" to "C" schedule properties into three shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff. The respondent has filed O.S. No. 3387 of 2007 on the file of City Civil Court Chennai seeking for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the Appellant to deliver possession of the suit "B" schedule property forming part of "A" schedule property under the occupation of the appellant ? New No. 38, Iyyah Mudali Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002 and other reliefs.

Resisting the said suit, appellant has filed written statement setting out the defences. The said suit O.S. No. 3387 of 2007 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has been transferred to Original Side of High Court and renumbered as Tr.C.S. No. 948 of 2007.

( 3. ) IN the said suit, the appellant has filed two applications - A. Nos. 2033 of 2011 to frame the additional issues. Earlier, in Transfer C.S. No. 948 of 2007, five issues were framed. A. No. 2033 of 2011 was filed by the appellant praying to frame the following additional issues.

"(1) Whether a mere suit for mandatory injunction without declaration of title is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act? (2)When the plaintiff himself had admitted that his title to the suit properties had been denied by the defendant, whether the valuation of the suit notionally is Rs. 1,000/- is correct under Section 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act? (3)When the suit was not one to enforce any specific contract, whether the valuation of the suit under Section 27 (c) of the Court Fees Act is correct? (4)Whether the plaintiff should value the suit property on the market value on the basis of the allegations made by him in the written statement filed to C.S. No. 286 of 2006? (5)Whether a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable especially when the relief of such mandatory injunction amounts to recovery of possession of the suit property"

( 4. ) OBSERVING that all 5 issues sought to be raised fall under two categories, the learned single Judge partly allowed application A. No. 2033 of 2011 framing the following two issues:

"(a) Whether the valuation of prayer (a) in Tr.C.S. No. 948 of 2007 is actually a prayer for recovery of possession and whether the nominal valuation by describing the prayer as one for mandatory injunction, is permissible under Section 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955? (b)Whether the prayer (a) in Tr.C.S. No.948 of 2007 is properly valued and proper Court fee paid or not"

Another application ? A. No. 2034 of 2011 was filed to try the suit on the preliminary issue relating to payment of the correct Court fee on the reliefs sought for by the respondent in the said suit. Insofar as A. No. 2034 of 2011, the learned single Judge held that the dispute with regard to valuation of the property and the correctness of the Court fee could be tried along with the other issues.

( 5. ) BEING aggrieved by the refusal to frame relevant additional issues and also declining to take up the issue regarding the valuation of the suit and payment of Court fee as preliminary issues, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

( 6. ) MR. S. Subbiah, learned counsel for Appellant has submitted that when specific plea was raised that the suit for mandatory injunction directing the Appellant to deliver possession of "B" schedule property is not maintainab