ORDER

These petitions by the plaintiffs of O.S.No.360/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere, involving inter-related issues between the common parties have been considered together, and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

By the impugned orders dated 18.11.2017 passed in relation to I.A.Nos.12 and 17 in O.S.No.360/2009, the Trial Court has declined the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners for amendment of the plaint whereas, by way of the other order of the even date i.e. 18.11.2017, the Trial Court has accepted an application (I.A.No.10) filed by the defendant and has directed the plaintiffs/petitioners to value the relief/subject matter added by way of previous amendment appropriately and to pay deficit court fees thereupon.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows:

On 14.07.2009, the plaintiffs filed the suit aforesaid in O.S.No.360/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere for the relief of declaration that the act of the defendant in taking up construction against the approved plan without leaving any set back in ‘B’ schedule property towards ‘A’ schedule property is illegal and unlawful; and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction not to put up unlawful construction in ‘B’ schedule property contrary to the approved plan and license.

The defendant has denied the case of plaintiffs and has contended that he has already constructed the commercial complex within his property without encroaching the plaintiffs’

property.

The plaintiffs got the plaint amended by adding five reliefs as per the amended plaint seeking declaration to entire ‘A’ schedule property; for mandatory injunction for demolition of alleged encroached portion; for delivery of such portion to the plaintiffs; for awarding damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of suit till the plaintiffs were put to actual possession; and finally, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to maintain a marginal space or set back of 1 meter towards eastern side in ‘B’ schedule property.

Initially, the reliefs claimed in the plaint had been as follows:

“1. For a declaration, declaring that the act of the defendant in taking up the illegal and unlawful construction against the approved plan without leaving any setback in the ‘B’ schedule property towards the ‘A’ schedule property as highly illegal and unlawful.

2. For a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, his agents, his servants or anybody claiming through him or on his behalf from putting up with any illegal and unlawful construction in the ‘B’ schedule property against the approved plan and license without leaving any setback towards the ‘A’ schedule property perpetually, in the interest of justice.

3. For court costs and such other reliefs.”

However, after amendment, the following reliefs were inserted in the plaint:-

“A-1) For a declaration, declaring that the Plaintiffs are the owners of ‘A’ schedule property measuring 21’ E-W and 90’ N-S and that the Defendant has encroached upon a portion of ‘A’ schedule property measuring 1½’ E-W and 73’

N-S, A-2) For a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to demolish and deliver vacant possession of the encroached area to the Plaintiff, measuring 1½’ E-W and 73’ N-S, on his failure to do so, the same may be done by the due process of law by appointing a Commissioner, A-3) the Plaintiffs be awarded vacant possession of the said encroached area, A-4) Awarding damages of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from the date of suit till the plaintiffs are put in actual possession of unauthorised use and occupation of the encroached area by the Defendant, A-5) Consequential mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to maintain a marginal space or set back of 1 meter towards eastern side in ‘B’

schedule property.”

In the additional written statement, the defendant raised the court fees issue and sought this issue to be t