O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.03.2021 made in O.S.No.109 of 2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram.

2.Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the Revision

Petitioners submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, had returned the plaint several times, raising many queries. Subsequently, it was complied with by the learned Counsel before the Trial Court. After several returns and compliances, the same were taken on file and the suit was numbered. After issuance of summons to the Defendant, the

Defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement.

3.The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners contended that the Plaintiff had purchased the property from the Defendant to the extent of 175 Sq.ft. Subsequently, on measuring by the Firka Surveyor, it was found that it was not as per FMB Sketch. Therefore, he sought another property marked as Schedule 'D' in the sketch attached to the typed set. In the meanwhile, the Defendant, who had sold the property, was staying on the first floor of the building as a permissive occupier. The learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the prayer in the plaint seeking for a declaration, mandatory injunction and also damages for use and occupation of the Defendant until he delivers vacant possession. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, suo moto took up preliminary issues regarding court fee valuation. After hearing, both parties have given a finding that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tambaram, is not attracted and the valuation is higher.

4.The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the learned Judge had valued the court fee for the purpose of mandatory injunction and also based on market value and thereby arrived at the wrong conclusion. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that regarding the valuation of the entire court fee, it is the subject matter involving facts and law that cannot be decided without evidence. The learned Judge also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which he chose a few lines and arrived at the conclusion that a permissive occupier cannot be evicted on prayer for a mandatory injunction and that the mandatory injunction is maintainable either against the tenant or the permissive occupier. Therefore, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which the learned Judge himself had relied on and the same is to be set aside.

5.The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners relied on the following rulings:-

(a)In the case of (2022) 8 SCC 333

Supreme Court is held as follows:-

“24.It remains trite that it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation. As a necessary corollary, the market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation might have its relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed but, ultimately, the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed.

25.So far as the present suit is concerned, the plaintiff has alleged the defendants to be the licensees and has sought mandatory injunction obliging them to remove themselves and their belongings. Not much of discussion is required to find that with such pleadings, claim of relief of mandatory injunction is not unknown to the legal process. For ready reference, we may refer to the relevant passage from the decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes [Maria Margarida Sequeira

Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] as under : (SCC p. 389, para 65

“65. A suit can be filed by the title-holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-less