20 kInds of Suits, relevant provision for Court Fee under APCF and SV Act, Limitation and Place of suing.,

1]            Suit based on Demand Promissory note for Recovery Money:-

           Court Fee:-    Advalorem Fees U/Sec.20 of  A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act  r/w. Art 1 ©  of Schedule -I of Court Fee Act.

      Limitation:-     Art-31,34,35 36 and 37 – Three years

Sec:18:-            Effect of acknowledgment  of debt -  Extends  Limitation only against the person who  has made it in  writing and signed  and does’t  bind other promissors.

Sec.19:-            Effect of payment:- If payment is made  by any  one of the borrowers/promissors if binds  all promissors – 1974 (1) An WR -98.

Sec.25(3) of Indian  Contract Act:- Promise  to pay  a debt barred  by limitation Law.

Jurisdiction:-  U/Sec. 20 C.P.C.

(a)    Where the promissory note executed.

(b)   Where the defendant ordinarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.

(c)    If there are more than one defendants executed Demand Promissory note, suit can be filed where any one of the defendants resides, but leave of the court is to be obtained U/Sec.20 (b) C.P.C.

2]            Suit  for arrears of rent:

                Court Fee:           Ad valorem court fee U/Sec.20 r/w. Art. 1(c)

                Limitation:           Art.52 – When the arrears 3 years – becomes due.

Jurisdiction:           Where the lease hold property is situated   or where rent agreed to be paid as per lease deed or where defendant resides-

3]            Suit for eviction (Other than RCC)

                Court Fee:           Ad valorem court fee U/Sec.40 (2) r/w. Sec.20 and Art.1 (c) of Court Fee Act.

                Limitation:           Art.67 – When the tenancy determined.  12 years

Jurisdiction:           Where the demised premises is situated U/Sec.16 of CPC.

4]            Suit for Specific Performance of an agreement of sale:-

Court Fee:           Ad valorem court fee U/Sec.39 of Court Fee Act on the amount of the consideration.

Limitation:           Art.54 of Limitation Act – 3 years- the date fixed for Performance or if knows such date fixed when the Plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

Jurisdiction:           Where the subject matter of the property is situated U/Sec.16 of CPC. 

5]            Suit by a Bank for recovery of loan:-

                1]            Based on Simple Agreement with  guarantors

                2]            Based on promissory note with guarantors

                3]            Based on Hypothecation Agreement with guarantors

                4]            Based on Mortgage:

                                A] Simple Mortgage

                                B] O deposit of Title Deeds (Equitable Mortgage)

Court Fee:           Ad valorem court fee the loan amount due  U/Sec.20 r/w.Art 1 (c)

Limitation:           Art.54 of Limitation Act – 3 years- the date fixed for Performance or if knows such date fixed when the Plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

                                   (i)            Article  23 to 26                                 -3 years

                                   (ii)           Article 31,34,35,36 & 37 -3 years (From the date of default)

                                   (iii)          Article 23 to 26 years                      -3years (Hypothication Agreement)

                                                                                                                   Moveable property (Spl.Vehicles)

                                   (iv)         Article 62,63,65                                 -12 years

Jurisdiction:   (i) (ii) & (iii) Where the agreement is executed (or) Where the defendants resides U/Sec. 20 C.P.C.

                  (iv)          Where the subject matter of the suit i.e., immovable property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC.

(6) Suit for Maintenance:-

Court Fee:           On the arrears of maintenance U/Sec.22 r/w 20 of C.F.Act.

Limitation:           Article 113 of Limitation Act.        - 3 years.

Jurisdiction:           Where the defendants reside (or) where the cause of action arose in part or in whole. 

(7)   Suit for Partition:-

Court Fee: (i) If the suit is based  on joint possession fixed Court Fee payable U/Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

              (ii)       If  the plaintiff  out of possession, if  he shall be paid on the market value of moveable  property (or)  3/4^th of the immovable property to extent  of plaintiff share.

              (ii)       When Court Fee is payable at fixed rate the value for the purpose of court fee and for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction will be on and the same U/Sec.50 (2) of Court Fee Act.

Limitation:           Article  ________________                                    12 years.

            Jurisdiction:                (i) where the subject matter is situated U/Sec.16 CPC

              (ii)       In case where the subject matter is situated and within the local jurisdiction of two different courts, the suit can be filed in any one of the Court U/Sec.17 CPC.

8]            Suit for dissolution of partnership:-

Court Fee:           U/Secs.33 and 20 of Court Fee Act on the value of the Plaintiff’s Share in the partnership.

Limitation:           Article 113 of Limitation Act. (Residuary Provision)            - 3 years.

Jurisdiction:           Where the partnership business is carried on U/Sec.20 CPC.

9]            Suit for enforcement of Easement:-

Court Fee:           U/Sec.30 of Court Fee Act on the amount at which the relief sought by the Plaintiff or at which the relief is value, whichever is higher.

Limitation:           Article 113 of Limitation Act. (Residuary Provision)            - 3 years.

Jurisdiction:           Where the subjected matter is situated U/Sec. 16 CPC.

10]        Suit for Injunction:-

Court Fee:           The relief may be either prohibitory injunction or  Mandatory injunction for preventing from  the wrongful person from causing  breach or  a directory  relief against the person  causing  infringement and  in both the occasions  the Court Fee is to be valued notionally  U/Sec.26 of C.F.Act. or  as fixed by Court, whichever is higher.

Limitation:           Article 113 of Limitation Act. (Residuary Provision)            - 3 years.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter (Immovable Property) is situated U/Sec.16 CPC.  In other cases where the cause of action partly or wholly arises.

11]          Suit  for declaration and injunction:- ( Immovable Property).

Court Fee:           U/Sec.24 (b) of Court Fee Act  with reference to immovable property  the fee shall be computed  on  Half of the market value of the property  or on Rs.300/-, whichever is higher.  The relief of injunction is ancillary to main relief; hence no court fee is necessary.

Limitation:           Article 65 of Limitation Act.   When the Defendants claims title over plaintiffs claim           - 12 years. ( Cause of Action)

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter i.e., immovable Property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC.  

12]          Suit for Possession U/Sec.6 of Specific Relief Act:- ( Immovable Property)

Court Fee:           U/Sec.28 of Court Fee Act on half of the market value of property or onRs.200/-, whichever is higher.

Limitation:           U/Sec. 6 (2) (a) of Specific Relief Act   the suit is to be filed within 6 months from the date of dispossession.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter i.e., immovable Property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC.  

13]          Suit for Possession and Injunction:

Court Fee:           U/Sec.29 of Court Fee Act on 3/4^th of the market value of property or on Rs.300/-, whichever is higher.

Limitation:           Article 65 of Limitation Act   the suit is to be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter i.e., immovable Property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC.  

14]          Suit for Damages for malicious prosecution:-

Court Fee:           Ad valoram U/Sec.20 r/w. Article 1 (c) of Court Fee Act.

Limitation:           Article 74 of Limitation Act within one year from the date of acquittal or termination of proceedings of prosecution.

Jurisdiction:        Where the case ended in acquittal U/Sec.20 of CPC.

15]          Suit for damages  for defamation:-

Court Fee:           Ad valoram Court Fee U/Sec.20 r/w. Article 1 (c) of Court Fee Act.

Limitation:           Article 75 and 76 of Limitation Act within one year from the date of defamatory statement or publication.

Jurisdiction:        Where the cause of action occurred U/Sec.20 of CPC.

16]          Suit for enforcement of right of pre-emption:-

Court Fee:           U/Sec.47 r/w. Article 1 (c) of Court Fee Act

Limitation:           Article 113 of Limitation Act when the right to sue accrues.

Jurisdiction:        Where the immovable property is situated U/Sec.16 of CPC.

17]          Suit for Declaration of title and Recovery of Possession:- ( Immovable Property).

 Court Fee:           U/Sec.24 (a) of Court Fee Act  with reference to immovable property  the fee shall be computed  on  3/4^th  of the market value of the property  or on Rs.300/-, whichever is higher.  The relief of possession is ancillary to main relief; hence no court fee is necessary.

Limitation:           Article 65 of Limitation Act.   When the Defendants claims title over plaintiffs claim           - 12 years. (Cause of Action)

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter i.e., immovable Property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC. 

18]          Suit for Enforcing Mortgage:-

                A]           Suit by Mortgager for Redemption:-

 Court Fee:          U/Sec.31 (8) of Court Fee Act on the Mortgage amount or on 1/4^th of principle amount secured under the Mortgage, whichever is higher.

Limitation:           Article 61 of Limitation Act.   When the right to redeem or to recovery possession accrues                 -  30  years.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter i.e., immovable Property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC. 

                B]            Suit by Mortgagee to enforce payment:-

Court Fee:           U/Sec.31 (1) of Court Fee Act on the amount due on Mortgage.

Limitation:           Article 62 of Limitation Act.   When the money sued for becomes due. 12  years.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter i.e., immovable Property is situated U/Sec.16 CPC. 

19]          Suit for Adoptions:- ( Minors)   

Court Fee:           U/Sec.25 of Court Fee Act on half of the market value of the movable and immovable properties involved or affected by such declaration or on Rs.500/-, whichever is higher.

Limitation:           Article 57 or 58 of Limitation Act as per the relief asked for plaint--          3  years.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter is situated or where the cause of action wholly or partly arises.

20]          Suit for Cancellation:-

Court Fee:           U/Sec.37 of Court Fee Act for cancellation of Decree having money value or other property  or document which  purports to create  operates  any right  in moveable  or immovable properties, the fee shall be completed  on the value of subject matter of the suit.

Limitation:           Article 59 of Limitation Act --          3  years.

Jurisdiction:        Where the subjected matter is situated or where the cause of action wholly or partly arises U/Secs.16 CPC and 20 CPC.

                                                  

               

               

               

               

                           

                           

Common objections raised by Court at the time of scrutiny of Plaint

Returned  for compliance of following objections :Dt.

1.                  Name of the Court to be mentioned U/O.7, R.1(a) CPC.

2.                  Full description of the party’s/Name/Sir name/Father name/age/Occu: H.No./

      locality are to be mentioned U/o 7, R.1(b) & (c).

3.                  Provision of Law for filling the suit or proceeding to be mentioned.

4.                  Claim of suit or proceeding to be mentioned.

5.                  Defendant interest or liability be mentioned.

6.                  The Cause of Action and the date & place to be mentioned U/Or.7 R.1(c) CPC.

7.                  Facts and place showing that the court has jurisdiction both pecuniary and Territorial be mentioned U./Or.7 R.1 (f) & U/Sec.15 to 20 CPC.

8.                  Limitation para with dates to be mentioned U/Sec.3 of Limitation Act, 1963 & ground upon which exemption is claimed U/Ord.7 R.6 CPC.

9.                  Statement of the value of subject matter of suit U/Or.6, R.2(2)  & (3) for the purpose of jurisdiction and C.F. provision to be mentioned  and pay the proper C.F. ( U/R.4 of APCF & SV Rules,1987)

10.              Description of the property admeasuring which is sufficient for identification and schedule of property to be mentioned U/Or.7, R.3 CPC.

11.              Market value U/R.3 of APCF and S.V.Act to be filed.

12.              The document which is based on suit to be filed U/Sec.7, R.14 CPC.

13.              Suit document is not properly stamped (Stamp duty and penalty) U/Or.7R.14 CPC.

14.              English Translation to other language documents to be filed U/R.18 CRP.

15.              List of documents to be mentioned in the foot of the plaint and Serial Number should be mentioned on documents U.O.13, R.1 (2) CPC.

16.              Requisite process fee with notices or summons along with copies of proceedings and documents to be filed U/R.70 (3) of CRP to be complied.

17.              Affidavit U/Or.6 R.15(4) CPC to be filed.

18.              Affidavit U/R 172 CRP to be filed for minor plaintiff/petitioner.

19.              Duplicate plaint copy to be filed U/Or.4 R.1 CPC.

20.              Vakalat with requisite C.F. and Welfare Ticket to be filed.  Blanks in vakalat to be filled up U/R 30 & 31 CRPC.

21.              Form No.8 signed by the party and to be duly filled.

22.              Authenticated copy of G.P.A.with Affidavit U/R 32 CRPC to be filed.

23.              C.C.of Judgment and Decree which appeal is preferred against case to be filed U/O 41, R.1 of CPC.

24.              Petition U/Or 32, R.3 of CPC to be filed for appointment of guardian for minor defendants.

25.              All the blanks to be filled up and also in copy of proceeding.

26.              Over writing to be attested in copy of proceeding also.

27.              Rule 8 CRP to be followed.

28.              U/Sec.80 (1) CPC to be filed.

29.              U/Or.27 R.5 A to be made the parties.

30.              For enlargement of time, petition U/sec.148/149 cpc to be filed.

31.    Suit is based upon a lost negotiable instrument, the plaintiff to be given indemnity for satisfaction of the court U/Or.7,R.16 CPC

Court cannot demand local surities, production of property documents, solvency certificate of Tahsildar etc,

Madras High Court - Sagayam @ Devasagayam vs State on 24 April, 2017

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:   24.4.2017

CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE  P.DEVADASS

Crl.M.P.No.3888 of 2017 in Crl.O.P.No.2891 of 2017

Sagayam @ Devasagayam                          ...   Petitioner/A-2         

. Vs ..

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, G-7 Chetpet Police Station, Chennai.  ...   ....Respondent/Complainant

Extract of relevant paras

57. In Motiram (supra) and in Raghubir Singh (supra) it was held that the bail condition should not be imposed in such a way that a rich man can go out of the jail on bail while a man who has no money, no property, who is unable to produce such surety shall suffer in jail.

58. Actually, our bail system is not based on any cash system. (See Motiram (supra), Raghubir Singh & Others (supra), Navaneetha Krishnan (supra) and Sundar @ Ashok (supra).

59. From the above, it is very clear that a Court cannot demand production of property documents from the accused, surety. Nowhere in Section 436 or 437 or 439 or 438 Cr.P.C. or in Form No.45 appended to Schedule II to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, production of property document, title deeds, etc. either by surety or by the accused has been contemplated.

60. So a Magistrate or a Sessions Judge or any Court, demanding production of property documents or R.C. book or any other document to show proof of property either movable or immovable with respect to the bail bond or surety bond amount is against law. It is against Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra).

61. The Courts demanding production of V.A.O. certificate, Residence certificate, Solvency Certificate or Tahsildar Certificate are not mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure. These are all creations and inventions of certain Courts. It is clear that these are all not out of any judicial thinking. It is out of an useless thinking curbing the liberty of the individual.

62. Some Courts insists that the surety should be a Government servant or a public servant or a person permanently employed in a reputed concern. This is not at all mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure. These are all inventions not by the Code but by some courts. It cannot be said that all Government servants, public servants are Buddas. There are many Government servants who are cheats. In many cases under Section 420 I.P.C., many Government servants are figuring as accused.

 
63. There are many private individuals having sterling qualities. Mahatma Gandhi is not a Government servant. But he is Father of our Nation. Yet, as per the present practice being adopted by certain criminal Courts, even Mahatma Gandhi cannot be accepted as a surety. Simply because a person is poor, who has no property, no money, no job, it cannot be said that he is disqualified to stand as a surety.

64. Chapter 33 of the Code does not say that the surety should be a member of the family or a blood relative. Court cannot insist that the sureties should be local surety. Suppose if the accused belongs to a different district, different State or even a foreigner or the accused is a business man or working here such as Nepalies, Biharies, etc. who will not have local sureties, their relatives are also in Bihar etc., it will be difficult for them to secure local sureties.

 
65. In Motiram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that India is a Bharat, any person, from anywhere in India can stand as surety.

66. As per section 441(4) of Cr.P.C. a surety should be a fit person. Who is a fit person has not been defined or explained anywhere in the Code. Generally, a surety must be a genuine person. He should not be a bogus person. A surety comes to the Court and gives undertaking to the Court that he will ensure the appearance of the accused. If the accused fails to appear before the Court, the surety bond executed by the surety will be forfeited.

67. Court can ascertain the genuineness of the sureties. A surety should have a genuine address. He may be asked to produce residential proof. He should not be a vagabond. He should establish his identity. A poor man can be a voter. Likewise, a poor man can be a surety. A surety can be a person without having own house. He can be a tenant. Even a person living in a platform, living in a slum having an acceptable address proof can also stand as a surety.

68. It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should have some acceptable residential proof.

69. Sometimes, one person may come forward to stand as surety for more than one accused. For example, if two sons or two brothers stand as sureties to an accused, his father, brother, mother, sister etc. may come forward to stand as surety. In such circumstances, question may arise whether the father can chose any one of his son and stand as surety and exclude his other son.

70. In this connection, Section 441-A Cr.P.C. contains guidance. It runs as under:
''Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars.'' [emphasis supplied by me] 

71. This court and other Courts while granting bail, directs the accused to execute bail bond for Rs.5000/-, Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-, Rs.20,000/- etc. and also produce sureties who should also execute a bond for similar amount. In view of the present value of the properties, it is very difficult to get property document for such value.

 
72. When superior Courts grants bail directs the accused to execute bail bond by himself as well as by the sureties. Unless otherwise stated, in the bail or anticipatory bail order, as the case may be, 'bond' means personal bond. In such circumstances, the Courts directing the sureties to produce property documents is beyond the scope of the bail order of the superior court.

 
73. Court should be satisfied as to the genuineness, identity of the surety and his residential address. It is equally applies to the accused. For this purpose, the Court can accept copy of anyone of the following documents after verification.
1 Passport 2 Ration Card 3 PAN card 4 Driving license 5 Voter's ID 6 Aadhaar Card 7 Photo ID issued by a recognised Educational Institution 8 Photo credit card 9 Kissan Photo Passbook 10 Pensioner's Photo card 11 Freedom fighter photo card 12 Identity Certificate with photo issued by a Gazetted officer or Tahsildar 13 Address card with photo issued by the Postal Department 14 Disability ID card or handicapped medical certificate issued by the Government
15. NREGS Job Card
16. CGHS/ECHS/State Government/ESIC Medical Card
17. Marriage Certificate issued by the Government 18 Post Office Statement or Passbook
19. Water Bill 20 Electricity Bill 21 Property Tax Receipt 22 Landline Telephone Bill 23 Credit Card Statement 24 Income-tax assessment order 25 Arms License
26. Certificate of Address issued by the head, Village Panchayat or an equivalent authority
27. Registered Lease/Sale/Rent Agreement
28. Caste and Domicile Certificate that has photo issued by the State Government
29. Gas Connection Bill 30 Insurance Policy 

74 From the above analysis, we come to the conclusion that when the accused executes bail bond, when the surety executes surety bond, Court cannot insist production of property documents, surety need not be a Government servant or a blood relative or a local surety.

Doctrine of Fraud - An Apex Court citation.

S P Chengalverau Vs Jagannath – (1994) 1 SCC 1, t

While allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations of the High Court as 'wholly perverse', Kuldip Singh, J. stated:

 "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation".          (emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court proceeded to state: "A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party".

Every court has inherent powers to recall such judgment /order where Order / judgment is alleged to have been obtained by fraud – suppression of facts – misrepresentation; or where it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Court itself has committed a mistake.

The Court concluded: "The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants".

Judgment or Order of a Court obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-est in law.-A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.; (2007) 4 SCC 221

Judgment or Order of a Court obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-est in law.-A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.; (2007) 4 SCC 221

Apex Court observed that such judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud - can be challenged in any court at any time and when a judgment is obtained by a fraud, this is an exception to Article 141 of the Constitution of India and doctrine of merger-

“If any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.”

Maintainability of Suit for declaration as legal-heir without citing any defendant i.e., against whomso-ever and without seeking any further relief.

V. Hanya Naik and ors. Vs. M. Krishna Reddy and ors.


AP High Court Decided On : Sep-11-2009 Reported in : 2009(6)ALT221

Judge : L. Narasimha Reddy,


: C.R.P. Nos. 4778 and 4867 of 2008

Appellant : V. Hanya Naik and ors. Respondent : M. Krishna Reddy


Judgement : ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In the recent past, the prices of land in and around the city of Hyderabad have increased in geometrical proportions. The unprecedented growth has naturally brought along with it, litigation of peculiar nature, divorced from settled principles of law. This tendency is more acute in various Courts in Ranga Reddy District. The case on hand presents an illustration. 2. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 150 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District, with a prayer to declare that, they are the surviving legal heirs of late, V. Rashya Naik, alias Rasiya, s/o. Puriya, @ Ponia Lambada. No one was impleaded as defendant, and it was filed against 'all concerned'. The suit was decreed on 17-03-2008. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 herein filed I.A. No. 222 of 2008 with a prayer to implead them as defendants in the suit. I.A. No. 223 of 2008 was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17-03-2008. Since there was delay in filing that application, they filed I.A. No. 186 of 2008, under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay of 61 days. The petitioners opposed these applications. Through common order dated 12-08-2008, the trial Court allowed the applications. These two revisions are filed against the orders in I.A. Nos. 222 and 223 of 2008, respectively. 4. Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that, in case the respondents have rights, vis-a-vis any property, they have to work out the remedies by filing suits, or instituting proceedings. He contends that the trial Court was not at all justified in impleading the respondents 1 and 2, or setting aside the ex parte decree. 5. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have grossly misused the process of Court in filing the suit and obtaining an ex parte decree. He contends that though an innocuous prayer was made for declaration, that they are the legal heirs of one, Mr. Rasiya, the petitioners started pressing that decree into service, before the various authorities under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short 'the Act;) 6. The prayer made by the respondents (sic. petitioners) in their suit is for, (i) 'Declaring the plaintiffs that they are the sole and surviving legal heirs of Late Sri V. Rashya Naik, alias Rasiya, s/o. Puriya @ Poniya Lambada; (ii) granting costs of the suit; and (iii) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 7. From this, it becomes clear that they prayed for a mere declaratory relief. It is relevant to mention that, neither any schedule was attached to the plaint, nor any individual was cited as defendant. It was not a petition under the Indian Succession Act. It is just unundestrandable as to how the trial court numbered the suit, though no defendants were shown in it. In para 5 of the plaint, the petitioners clearly stated that the necessity for them to file the suit has arisen on account of the fact that their claim was not being accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevalla, in respect of the lands held by Rasiya. It was also mentioned that Rasiya left an estate. In this background the petitioners were under obligation to mention the particulars of the estate, as regards which, the succession was claimed, and to implead the individuals or officials, who disputed their right to succeed to the estate of late Rasiya. On both the counts, the plaint was silent. 8. The suit was notionally valued at Rs. 3,000/-, and the trial Court has generously accepted that, without any further verification. Assuming that the suit was not defective, either as regards the mentioning the property, or as to the presence of the parties against whom the relief is claimed, a serious legal infirmity was glaring on the face of it. The petitioners did not claim any relief ancillary or subsidiary to the one, of declaration. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under: Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the
plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 9. From a perusal of the proviso, it becomes clear that no Court shall grant the mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff, being in a position to claim other relief; did not pray for it. Even a vague idea about this provision would have persuaded the trial Court, to refuse numbering of the suit. As pointed out at the threshold, the sky rocketing of prices of land has manifested its effect in various fields, including the approach of the Courts, in deviation of the settled norms. 10. Had the petitioners been satisfied with the decree and did not claim any rights, vis-a-vis any property, nobody would have felt aggrieved by that. The record discloses that the petitioners pressed the decree, in the suit, into service, in the various proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The respondents naturally felt aggrieved by this ex parte decree, and they approached the trial Court with proper applications. At least, at a belated stage, the trial Court realized the mistake committed by it earlier, and ordered the interlocutory applications filed by the respondents. The petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account of the orders. The maximum that can now happen is that, the decree, that was obtained by the petitioners by resorting to procedure, not recognized by law would be set aside, and proper adjudication, with reference to the relevant provisions of law, would take place. 11. It is hoped that the Civil Courts, particularity in the districts, where the value of the land has increased substantially, in the recent past, would evince required amount of interest and attention before the suits filed in respect of the immovable properties are numbered, lest, the innocent citizens become victims of the ingenious methods resorted to, by vested interests. 12. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. Before proceeding with the suit further, the trial Court shall satisfy itself, as to whether the suit accords with the relevant provisions of law. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.