9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the addition of prayers of possession and mandatory injunction in a suit for bare injunction requires payment of additional Court fee under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956? Analysis: 1. The plaintiff initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents. Subsequently, due to alleged encroachment and construction by the respondents, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add prayers for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The court directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee under Section 24 of the Act based on the market value of the properties for the added reliefs. 2. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the added prayers were ancillary and incidental to the main relief of permanent injunction for which Court fee had already been paid. The respondents' counsel contended that the initial relief of injunction transformed into consequential relief due to the addition of possession and mandatory injunction prayers, necessitating payment of Court fee on the main reliefs as added. 3. The key question for consideration was whether, following the addition of possession and mandatory injunction prayers to a suit initially for injunction, the main relief attracting additional Court fee could be determined. The Court examined the nature of the reliefs added and their relationship to the main relief of injunction in the context of the Act. 4. The Court referred to Section 26 of the Act, which outlines the payment of Court fee for suits involving distinct reliefs based on the same cause of action. Additionally, Section 6 of the Act addresses multifarious suits and the valuation of reliefs based on the same cause of action or different causes of action. 5. The Court emphasized that the main relief in a suit is typically the primary relief sought. In this case, the relief of possession was deemed dominant and substantial, with the relief of injunction becoming consequential to the added reliefs. The Court highlighted the distinction between main and ancillary reliefs, noting that possession and declaration reliefs were inherently main reliefs. 6. The Court concluded that the relief of possession constituted the main relief in the suit, with injunction reliefs becoming ancillary to it. Even if the suit was considered comprehensive, requiring payment of the highest Court fee on the reliefs under Section 6(2) of the Act, the possessory relief was deemed primary. 7. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower Court's decision to require the plaintiff to pay the Court fee under Section 24 of the Act based on the market value of the properties. The revision was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
