MERAVALA NARAYANASWAMY KONE Vs. SRIMATHI INAGANTI GOPAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to A and B scheduled properties and for possession there was also a prayer that the defendant should be directed to remove the structures on a vacant site which is included in A-1 schedule. One of the defences to the suit was that it was undervalued and that if properly valued it ousts the jurisdiction of the District Munsif 's Court in which it was filed. The plaint recited that she was entitled to get possession of the vacant site on which the defendant had put up certain structures after the latter had removed them and also for some lands and crops standing thereon. For the purpose of Court-fee she valued the A schedule at Rs. 2,000, the B schedule property at Rs. 1340, for the purpose of declaratory relief and possession under section 7 (iv-c) and the relief of injunction notionally at Rs. 50. According to the defendant, the relief of injunction should have been valued under section 7 (iv-c) i.e., half of the market value of the properties including the structures thereon which were estimated by a commissioner at Rs. 19,704 under section 7 (iv-c) . The parties wanted that the question of Court-fee should be decided as a preliminary issue and the trial Court after going into the matter decided this issue in of the plaintiff.

(2.) IN this revision petition the same contentions are raised by Mr. Ramachandrarao, namely, that in valuing the relief for injunction the structures have to be into account; and secondly the relief of injunction being the main, Court-fee ought to have been paid under clause (c) and not under (d) as thought by the Trial Court Both the submissions have to be rejected. There is no scope for the contention that the value of the structures should also be included for the reason that the plaintiff wanted vacant possession of the site and she does not put forward any claim to the properties that were standing on the land. When the suit is for recovery of the vacant site, after removal of the structures thereon by the plaintiff the Court-fee payable is on the value of the vacant site and does not take in the value of the buildings that were put upon it. If authority it needed for that, it is found in Ramaswami v. Gundappa1. The trial Court was therefore right in its opinion that it is only the value of the site that should decide the question of Court-fee on the relief of declaration and possession.

(3.) ON this point also the finding of the trial Court is unassailable. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.