DOSSON DAVIEW Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the order made in Check Slip Nos. 518/xxiv/s in O. S. No. 434 of 1993, 517/xxiv/s in O. S. No. 433 of 1993 and 519/xxiv/s in o. S. No. 435 of 1993 dated 9. 12. 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, pattukottai, the above CRPs have been filed.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these three revisions have filed three different suits on the file of the District Court, Pattukottai for declaration and injunction with respect of their ownership as ancestral rights and by valuing the suit property under section 25 (b) of the Tamilnadu Court fee and Suits Valuation Act. THE lower court has raised an objection by way of check slip stating that Hie relief claimed is an intangible right. THE petitioners filed their objections Stating that both the warrams under the Inam abolition Act, 1963 are with them and that no rent is paid to anyone. However, the learned District Munsif by order dated 5. 9. 1996 allowed the check slip objection and directed the petitioners to pay the court fees accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the above three revisions have been filed by the respective plaintiffs.

(3.) SEC. 25 (b) contemplates only a declaratory and consequential relief with respect to an immovable property. The lower court in its judgment totally misconstrued the substance of the relief in the suit and had taken only the nomenclature of the prayer and had reasoned it erroneously as intangible right which is not legally sustainable. The court below while dealing with the check slips overlooked the crucial factor while valuing the suit namely the nature of the relief sought and also the fact with reference to what the relief is prayed for. It is the specific case and relief sought by the plaintiff to declare them as ancestral ryots to the suit lands. In other words they claim ownership ancestrally to the suit lands after the village was taken over under Act 26 of 1963. Thus only a statutory ownership is claimed to the suit land through a Civil Court, which was not permissible prior to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga samigal Madam, 1986 SC 794. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order of the court below dated 5. 9. 96 in Check Slip Nos concerned, is contrary to law and materially irregular and vitiated and therefore, are liable to be set aside.