BRAMARAMBA R Vs. R VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in Check Slip No.3/95 in O.S.No.52/93 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Addanki.

(2.) A suit was filed for bare injunction stating that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The first defendant is the husband of the first plaintiff and he is managing the family properties and he is merely a custodian and he has not saleable interest in the plaint schedule item Nos.l and 2. Defendant No.2 is the brother's son of the defendant No.1. When the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.2 was seriously attempting to obtain some documents with regard to item No.2, they got issued a legal notice dt.27-4-1993. The defendants Issued Caveat notice enclosing photostat copies of the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant. When the plaint was presented, the lower Court held that though the main relief is for bare injunction, the question of title has to be gone into necessarily, because the defendants had enclosed photostat copies of the sale deeds to the Caveat notice. That finding is challenged in this Revision Petition.

(3.) . The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that (as) the plaintiffs prayed for a bare injunction, the suit cannot be treated as one for deciding title though incidentally. The Court cannot insist for that relief under Section 26(a) of the (Court-Fees) Act. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court in Kondaiah vs. Ramanareddy wherein it is held that the suit is in essence one for injunction and it has to succeed or fail on proof of possession and that the question in regard to the title is extraneous and did not fall for consideration and it therefore follows that the case does not attract the operation of clause (a) of Section 26 of the Act. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in N.A. Siddiqui vs. State of A.P. wherein it is held,