@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.@mdashThis Revision has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of return passed by the learned I Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras dated 24.09.2010 on the plaint filed by him, for bare declaration of the Plaintiff''s status as sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
2. Heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.
3. Since the revision has been filed against the order of return of the plaint in which no summons were ordered against the Defendants and the revision itself is disposable, prior to the numbering of the suit, no notice is necessary against the Respondents.
4. Learned senior counsel would submit in his argument that the plaint was filed by the revision Petitioner as Plaintiff against the Defendants, to declare her status as sole and absolute owner of the suit property u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which suit is maintainable without a consequential relief. However, the lower court had passed an order returning the plaint that the suit would fall u/s 25(b) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and Court fee was directed to be paid under that section. He would rely upon the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, in support of his argument. He would further submit in his argument that when the plaintiff is entitled to bring the suit for bare declaration of his status and right for the suit property, there is no necessity for asking a consequential relief and to value the suit u/s 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Therefore, he would request the Court to interfere and set aside the order passed by the lower court and to issue suitable direction to the lower court, by allowing the revision.
5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel. On a careful perusal of the averments made in the plaint filed against the Defendants, the Petitioner/Plaintiff had prayed for the following prayer:
"a) a declaration of the Plaintiffs'' status as the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
(b) costs of the suit.
In the said prayer, it has been categorically sought for declaration of Plaintiffs'' status as the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property. No consequential relief has been asked for in the plaint.
6. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act would run thus:
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.
Explanation: A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be trustee."
7. On a careful perusal of the ingredients of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, any person who wants to declare his status as to any property, can file the suit for declaration of his status or right as per the said provisions and he need not ask for any further reliefs. However, the proviso to the said section would go to show that such declaration shall not be issued in the event, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title and omitted so.
8. At the stage of presentation of the plaint, the Court has to go through the averments of the plaint and to come to a conclusion about the nature of relief sought for by the Petitioner/Plaintiff. The necessity of asking for further relief than mere declaration of status or right, can be decided only after issuing summons to Defendants and after going through the contentions of the Defendants in answer to the claim of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. At the stage of presentation of the plaint itself, the Court cannot decide the right of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and direct her to go for further reliefs also along with the declaration of his status or right in the suit property. On the face of the allegations made in the plaint, it is found to be in order for a suit for the relief of status declaration u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, it has to entertain the suit and to value the suit only u/s 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. In case, the suit is subsequently attracted under the proviso to Section 34, it has to be converted into that of a suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs and at the said contingency only it will be covered u/s 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit valuation Act.
9. At this stage, the Court should have gone through the plaint averments, and to admit the plaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In the plaint filed by the Petitioner, the averments are made only to attract the provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. It is not germane to go through the proviso to Section 34, at this stage. Therefore, the order of return passed by the lower Court is against the tenor of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. Therefore it has become necessary for this Court to interfere and set aside the order passed by the lower Court and to issue directions. The Registry is directed to return the plaint to the Petitioner, for presentation of the same before the lower Court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such representation, the lower Court is directed to number the plaint, if otherwise in order, in accordance with law.
10. For the foregoing directions, I am of the considered view that the lower court ought to have taken the plaint on, filed u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act, after valuing the suit u/s 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and hence, it has become necessary for this Court to set aside the order passed by the lower court and allow the revision accordingly.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this Civil Revision Petition is ordered. No costs.
