P. Venkatalakshmi Narayana Sastri vs Bairapaneni Venkayya and others

Umamaheswaram, J.—This Civil Revision petition rais a question as to whether the petitioner should pay Court-fee under S. 7 (iv) (d) or S. 7 (sic) (c) of the Court-fees Act. The Court below he that he should value the relief under S. 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. For the purpose of appreciation 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 shrotriyamdara. 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 the relief sought by the plaintiff is with reference to any immovable property so as to attract the terms of the proviso to S. 7 (iv). A similar question arose before In Re: Rajah K.J.V. Naidu, The learned judge held that unless the relief asked involved he possession of land, the Madras Proviso is not applicable.

He further held that as the easements do not ivolve possession of land, house or garden, it 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 grating or the contesting defendants are entitled to (sic)ese rights. I am inclined to take the view that he decision referred to supra directly governs his case and that S. 7 (iv) (c) does not apply.

Mr. Srinivasa Rao, on behalf of the respondent, invited my attention to the decision in Sri Sri Satyabhigna Theerthaswamy Varu of Uttaradi Mutt by Alur Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu Vs. Mundru Narasayya and Others, That decision has no application to the facts of this case. What was held Govindarajachari J., was that as the dispute dated to the trees standing on the lands, the (sic)rms of S. 7 (v) applied. As already stated the point arising for decision in this case is as who is entitled to rights of grazing on the it lands.

There is no dispute with regard to the owner-ship of the immoveable property. The order of the Court below calling upon the petitioner to (sic)lue the claim under S. 7 (iv) (c) is wrong and therefore set aside. The Court-fee paid by the petitioner is proper. The Civil Revision Petition is owed. There will be no order as to costs.