Skip to content


K. Subramanya Naidu and anr. Vs. Adilakshmiammal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 2526 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1978AP464
ActsAndhra Pardesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - Sections 26
AppellantK. Subramanya Naidu and anr.
RespondentAdilakshmiammal and anr.
Appellant AdvocateE. Manohar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP. Ramakrishna Raju, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - valuation of relief - section 26 of andhra pradesh court-fees and suits valuation act, 1956 - munsif directed plaintiff to value relief of injunction - such direction challenged - relief of injunction need not be valued at market value of property under section 26 (c) - plaintiff entitled to put his own value on relief - court empowered to enhance valuation in case plaintiff's valuation was low - held, plaintiff at liberty to put his own valuation on relief of injunction. - - i am not satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out for interference......the parties to adduce any evidence if they so desired. under s. 26(c) of the a. p. 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 question of title is involved, to value the relief at the market value.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order of the learned District Munsif, Satyavedu, 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 Rupees 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. There 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 S. 26(c) of the A. P. 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 question 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 C. R. P. is therefore dismissed. No costs.

2. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //