M RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. M NANDA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed a suit praying for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. THE Court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the Court fee should have been valued under Section 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and not under Section 25 (d) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision before this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, the relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit, is only with reference to the removal of the cloud over the petitioner's right of usage, enjoyment, etc. , of the suit property and the common pathway, as the same is obstructed by the defendant and as such, the Court fee payable for the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff comes under Section 25 (d) and not under Section 25 (b) of the Act, as held by the Court below. He would also cite a decision of this Court reported in Rangoon Chidambara Reddiar Chatram Trust, Etc. , v. State of Tamil nadu, 1994 (1) L. W. 474 to substantiate his plea.

(3.) IT is specifically stated in the plaint that as per the sale deed dated 19. 11. 1997, the petitioner is entitled to the southern half share and the respondent would be entitled to the northern half share. There was nothing mentioned about the common pathway. The respondent attempted to interfere with the petitioner's right of usage, enjoyment, etc. , of the suit property and the common pathway, by putting up construction. The petitioner has approached the civil Court to obtain declaration about the said right and the consequential injunction. The wordings contained in the plaint would certainly make it clear that the Court fee would be payable only under Section 25 (b) of the Act and not under Section 25 (d) of the Act.