1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam, made in O.S. No. 39 of 1932, directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for a declaration of title to the properties mentioned in the plaint and also to value the suit in accordance with the proviso to Section 7, Clause (4) (c), Court-fees Act. A preliminary objection is raised that the petition is incompetent under Section 115, Civil P.C. But as a question of jurisdiction also will be involved in the plaintiff amending the plaint and valuing it according to the proviso to Section 7, Court-fees Act, I do not think that the preliminary objection can be upheld.
2. The suit was for a permanent injunction to restrain the villagers of Thevaram and Meenakshipuram from quarrying or removing stones, etc., without paying the necessary fees to the plaintiff and obtaining a license. But this is only an allegation relating to the cause of action, namely, that the plaintiff has a right to the property and the infringement thereof leading to the relief claimed. It does not amount to saying that 'the defendants-are denying my title and therefore I want a declaration regarding my title.' I do not therefore think that the plaint can be held to be substantially one for a declaration of title of the zamindar to the properties mentioned in the plaint and for a permanent injunction. It is only for a permanent injunction and it has been properly valued. The decisions relied on by the learned District Munsif have really no application. In the case reported in Vaiyapuri Chetty v. Ramachandra Thevar 1925 21 MLW 699 it is clear from the judgment itself that the plaint as drafted contained a prayer for a declaration as well as for an injunction and the prayer was in respect of these two reliefs. In Kattuja Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai 1929 MWN 286 the suit was for a declaration that the will referred to therein was a forgery and for cancellation of the will. The question that has to be decided in this case did not arise for decision there. The subject-matter of the suit in In re Venkata Krishna Pathar : (1927)52MLJ121 was an easement in regard to the property and not the property itself.
3. The fact that the question of title also may have to be incidentally gone into in deciding whether an injunction can be given or not is not any justification for holding that the suit is for a declaration of title and for injunction. There can also be no objection to the maintainability of this suit in that form. There is no need in this case, I think, to have the plaint amended as directed by the lower Court.
4. The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside and the lower Court is directed to proceed to dispose of the suit on the plaint as originally filed. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner in this Court.