K SUBRAMANYA NAIDU Vs. ADILAKSHMIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed aginst an order of the learned District Munsiff, Sathyavedu, directing the plaintiff to value the relief of injunction sought by him at Rs.1,000 instead of at Rs. 300 as sought to be valued by him. The petitioner is the defendant. According to the defendant the market value of the properties involved in the suit is over Rs. 25,000 and therefore the learned District Munsif ought not to have arbitrarily fixed the value of the relief at Rs. 1,000. He contends that an enquiry should have been held into the question as to how the relief of injunction should be valued and thereafter only the value should be fixed. T here is nothing on record to show that the learned District Munsiff did not permit the parties to adduce any evidence if they so desired. Under section 26 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, the relief of injunction need not be valued at the market value of the property involved in the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to put his own value on the relief. If the valuation put on the relief by the plaintiff is absurdly low, it is open to the Court to enhance the valuation. Since the object of a suit for injunction is not to investigate question of title, but merely to protect rightful possession against wrongful disturbance, the Legislature apparently gave the liberty to the plaintiff to put his own valuation on the relief. To direct the plaintiff in a suit for injunction, in a suit where no buestion of title is involved, to value the relief at the market value may in effect be to penalise the plaintiff. That apparently is the reason why the plaintiff is given the liberty to put his own valuation, on the relief of injunction. I am not satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out for interference. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismisesd. No costs. Revision allowed.