Decided on October 19,1955



- (1.)THIS civil revision petition raises a question as to whether the petitioner should pay court-fee under Section 7 (iv) (d) or Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. The Court below held that he should value the relief under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. For the purpose of appreciating the question, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. The petitioner claims to be a lessee from the 1st defendant, one of the shrotriyamdars. Defendants 2 to 10 and 12 and 13 sought to interfere with his enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he therefore filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his enjoyment. The contesting defendants claimed that they had a customary right to graze their cattle on the suit lands. The question for consideration is, whether th'e relief sought by the plaintiff is with reference to any immoveable property so as to attract the terms of the proviso to section 7 (iv). A similar question arose before Somayya, J. in Rajah K. J. V. Natdu in Real . The learned Judge held that unless the relief asked involved the possession of land, the Madras Proviso is not applicable. He further held that as the easements do not involve possession of land, house or garden, the proviso does not apply to easements at all. The only dispute that arises in this case is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to rights of grazing or the contesting defendants are entitled to those rights. I am inclined to take the view that the decision referred to supra directly governs this case and that section 7 (iv) (c) does not apply. Mr. Srinivasa Rao, on behalf of the respondent, invited my attention to the decision in Sri Sri Salyabhigna Theerthaswamy varu of Uttaradi Mutt by 'Alur Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu v. Mundru Narasayya & others . That decision has no application to the facts of this case. What was held by Govindarajachari J. was that as the dispute related to the trees 'standing on the lands, the terms of section 7 (v) applied. As already stated, the point arising for decision in this case is as to who is entitled to rights of grazing on the suit lands. There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the immoveable property. The order of the court below calling upon the petitioner to value the claim under Section 7 (iv) (c) is wrong and is therefore set aside. The court-fee paid by the petitioner is proper. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. M. s. R. Revision allowed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.