MOHAMMAD ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. D S LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 C. P. C. filed in the following circumstances ;i .The plaintiff-petitioner instituted O S. No. 239 of 1964 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 17-11-1961 The suit was for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Assistant City Civil Court Judge, whose pecuniary jurisdiction admittedly extends only up o Rs. 5,000/- treated the suit as one falling under Section, 26 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and held. that it fell beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaint was accordingly retu rned for representation to the proper Court having jurisdiction Against this order, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred C. M. A. No. 59/65 to the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, That appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff has now come up to this Court by way of the present Revision.

(2.) The only-point argued by Mr. Jahangir Ali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Court below erred in thinking that the suit fell vithin the purview of section 26 (c) of the Court Fees Act. According to the learned Counsel, thesuit comes within the ambit of Section 27(1) of that Act. His reasoning is as follows : No doubt the only prayer made in the plaint is one for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Nevertheless, he says the suit must be deemed to be one for a declaration within the meaning of section 27 (IK The argument is that even for deciding whether the plaintiff it entitled to the injunction askejd for or not, the Court may have to go into the question of the plaintiff's right and title to the property and that this process necessarily inyalves declaration of the plaintiff's right or title. It is on the strength of this reasoning that the petitioner's learned Counsel seeks to bring the suit under section 27 (1), I am not able to agree with the reasoning or to accede to the result contended for. That a suit for injunction and a suit for a declaration are treated as two different categories of suits cannot be gainsaid.

(3.) The several sections in the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and also the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the forms of decrees prescribed in the schedule to the C. P. C. make a marked and unmistakable distinction between suit for injunction and a suit for a declaration. That a Court, before decreeing a suit for injunction, may have to go into the question of the plaintiff's right or title to the property, does not make a suit for injunction one for a declaration or one other than for injunction. It is important to note that the decree given in an injunction suit simpliciter is an injunction decree and not a declaratory decree. on the other hand, a decree given in a suit for a declaration is a declaratory decree. It is not necessary to labour this aspect further, for, it appears to my mind to be so clear. In the instant case, as I already indicated, the suit was only for a permanent injunction. Such a suit cannot be considered to be a suit for a declaration within the meaning of Section 27.