THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2133 OF 2011 DATED AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN Smt.Palani Reddy K.R. @ Safa Fatima …Petitioner And R.Stanislas Reddy @ R.S.Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2133 OF 2011 ORDER: The short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2010 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, valued the relief sought in the suit correctly and paid court fee thereon in accordance with law. The trial Court, by its order dated 30.05.2011, held against the plaintiff on this count and returned the plaint for correct valuation of the suit with reference to the existing structures and to pay court fee in accordance with law within one month under threat of rejection of the plaint thereafter. The said order was passed in I.A.No.88 of 2011 in O.S.No.85 of 2010, an application filed by defendants 1 and 7 in the suit under Order VII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is in revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. By order dated 27.06.2011, this Court granted interim stay of the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the trial Court. The suit, O.S.No.85 of 2010, was filed for declaration of the plaintiff’s title to the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.4.30 guntas in Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, for delivery of vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff by demolishing the existing structures and by removing the stones erected thereon, for a direction to the survey and land records authorities to demarcate and fix the boundaries, to consequently restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land on delivery of its possession to him and for costs. The plaintiff valued the suit land and paid the requisite court fee thereon. The trial Court, however, was of the opinion that as structures were admittedly existing on the said land, the plaintiff had to include the value thereof while calculating the valuation of the suit for the purpose of paying the court fee. Pertinent to note, the plaintiff sought delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule land after removal of the structures existing thereon. He did not pray for delivery of these existing structures as part of his relief in the suit. The removal of such structures was not an independent relief but was ancillary to the relief of vacant possession. The plaintiff would be required to include the value of the structures in the suit valuation only if the relief sought by him in the context of these structures was a separate and distinct relief. Once that is not so, he was not required to take such value into reckoning while valuing his suit and computing the court fee payable. This Court is fortified in taking this view by the observations of a learned Judge of this Court in ANDUGULAPATI NARASIMHA RAO v. ABBARAJU CHENCHAMMA[1]: “8. There is only one other point that requires to be considered, and that is, whether the relief introduced by the amendment should be separately valued as directed by the Court below. It must be noticed that the plaintiffs asked for possession of land which they claim to be cultivable land assessed to revenue by the Government and registered in the accounts in a separate number. If the defendants have raised any superstructures thereon and if ultimately it is found that they have no right to do so, obviously it would amount to an act of trespass and the plaintiffs could take legitimate action against them. In that event, it would be adding insult to injury for the defendants to demand, having unauthorisedly raised the constructions on a land which did not belong to them, and to insist on the further Court-fee being paid on the relief of demolition, which is not a separate relief but is merely a relief which flows from the relief of possession. When the plaintiffs are found to be entitled to possession of the land, it would be open to them to ask for the relief that the defendants be directed to demolish the superstructures if they chose, so that the land alone may, after clearing the superstructures, be delivered to the plaintiffs as prayed for by them in their plaint. If, however, the defendants do not demolish the superstructures, it would be open to the plaintiffs to have the same demolished through Court and recover the costs thereof in execution. Hence, I am clearly of opinion that in a case of this description, no separate Court-fee need be paid on the relief of demolition which is not an independent relief.” In the light of the aforestated legal position, the trial Court was not correct in holding that the plaintiff had to include the value of the structures existing on the suit land and pay court fee thereon for entertaining the suit. The order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the trial Court is accordingly set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit, O.S.No.85 of 2010, as presented and adjudicate the same expeditiously. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. CRPMP No.2992 of 2011 shall consequently stand dismissed as infructuous. Parties shall bear their own costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ AUGUST, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] AIR 1962 AP 408