The court emphasized the limitations of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and highlighted the principles regarding the valuation of suits for injunction relating to immovable property.

In the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar in unregistered Civil Suit No./2013.

2. That the petitioner filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the house situated on khasra No. 201/2 and 222/2, Makronia, District Sagar and the sale deed executed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent No. 3 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. He also sought a decree for injunction restraining the respondent No. 3 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioners.

3. The trial Court by the impugned order directed the plaintiffs to value the suit for injunction as valued for the purpose of declaration and pay ad valorem Court fee on such valuation. Other part of the valuation of the suit and payment of the Court fee of the petitioners/plaintiffs was found to be in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that part of the order whereby the petitioners have been directed to value the suit for injunction as valued for the relief for declaration and to pay ad valorem Court fee is illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of law. It is submitted by him that at this stage, the trial Court has only to look into the averments made in the plaint and on the basis of that the Court has to decide that whether the valuation of the suit and the payment of the Court fees is in accordance with law or not. It is submitted by him that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land and therefore, the relief for injunction is not dependent on the main relief. It is further submitted by him that husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 was the owner of the suit property and by registered relinquishment deed Munna Lai in whose favour the suit property was purchased by registered relinquishment deed has already relinquished his right, title and interest in the said property.

5. The respondent No. 1 himself filed a suit for declaration that he is one of the co-owners of the suit property and the petitioners/plaintiffs have equal right to the suit property including other immovable property left by Shekhar Chand. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it is contended, that prima facie, the petitioners/plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit property although on the basis of the relinquished deed they claimed to be exclusive owners.

6. Combating the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the order passed by the trial Court and submitted that there is no error warranting any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 : AIR 2008 SC 2033.

7. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

8. The validity of the order passed in the present case has to be examined on the principles summarised by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra). The Apex Court has summarised the position in regard to valuation of suit for injunction relating to immovable property as under:

17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiffs title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiffs lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, no