MIR JAFFER ALI Vs. SYED RABBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this revision against the order of the lower Court dated 1-3-1993 in unregistered O.S. in C.F.R.No. 90 of 1993.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed the suit for confirmation of possession and injunction of the suit land claiming that he is in possession of the land and others are trying to interfere. He paid the Court fee under the residuary provision i.e., under Section 47 (iv) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the Act VII of 1956). The office or the Lower Court has taken objection that the suit has to be valued under Section 24 (b) of the Act VII of 1956 and the valuation made by the plaintiff and Court fee paid under Section 47(iv) of the Act VII of 1956 is not correct and returned the bundle for payment of proper Court fee. Then the matter came up before the lower Court and the lower Court passed the order under revision that there is no mere relief of confirmation of possession in the Specific Relief Act and directed the plaintiff to value the suit on half of the market value of the subject matter under Section 24(b) of the Act VII of 1956 and pay Court fee accordingly, within ten days. The Lower Court also held that since the allegations made in the plaint show that the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to value the suit as suit for declaration and directed to pay Court-fee as stated above. That order is challenged in this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the relief sought for in the plaint is confirmation of possession and injunction, that the relief of injunction is ancillary relief and the confirmation of possession is main relief, that the Act VII of 1956 did not provide for the valuation of suits of confirmation of possession, that the residuary provision i.e., Section 47 of the Act applies, that the petitioner accordingly paid the Court fee valuing the suit land as more than Rs. 10,000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.300/- which is correct and legal and that the lower Court erred in directing the petitioner to pay the Court fee under Section 24(b) of the Act VII of 1956 treating the suit as one for declaration.