How to ascertain main relief and ancilliary relief for purpose of payment of court fees?

 Proviso contemplates that the plaint has to be valued on the main relief if the other reliefs are only ancillary to the main relief. Therefore, for applying the said provision, it has to be seen as to which of the reliefs constitute the main and ancillary. The expression "main relief takes in almost every relief for which the suit is solely laid for. However, the expression "ancillary relief has to be read in conjunction with the main relief i.e., it should be aiding or auxiliary to the main relief. An ancillary relief can in a given circumstance be the main relief but not vice versa. In a simpliciter suit for injuction, the relief of injunction comprises the main relief but when a relief which is of a substantial nature viz., possession or declaration is added to it, the relief of injunction which was hitherto the main relief scales down to the position of a consequential relief. There .are ample distinctive features in between main and ancillary reliefs. Apart from being essentially paramount and predominant, the main relief is a substantial in nature forging on substantive and vested rights. Possessory relief is the basis and any form of injunction - either mandatory or perpetual - springs from it. To see if a relief is subsidiary or main, the real test is to see whether one relief can be granted without the other. Here in this case in view of the very facts alleged, either of the reliefs of injunctions cannot be granted unless the petitioner seeks possession. Therefore, the possessory relief becomes dominant and constitutes as the main. Simply because initially the suit is filed for injunction and the other reliefs of declaration or possession have been added in view of changed circumstances or warranting circumstances on the appearance of the defendant, the relief of injunction does not remain as the main relief making the other reliefs of declaration or possession as ancillary thereto. In fact, in any given case, the reliefs of declaration and possession necessarily constitute the main reliefs and these reliefs would always go with the other incidental reliefs of injunction either perpetual or mandatory depending on the facts of each case. Subsequent addition of any such substantial relief would not make it ancillary to the relief already existing merely because such relief was the initial foundation for the suit. The petitioner-plaintiff having filed the suit initially for injunction and in view of the alleged subsequent acts of encroachment and construction, the reliefs of possession and mandatory injunction were added lateron. These reliefs, even according to the plaintiff, are in fact based on the subsequent cause of action. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the relief of possession constitutes the main relief and any other reliefs of injunction either perpetual or mandatory fall behind the same and become ancillary to the same. Even if the suit is to be treated as a comprehensive one including the reliefs of injunction and possession, apart from basing upon different causes of action, it only calls for payment of the highest Court fee leviable on the reliefs as per Section 6(2) of the Act viz., possessory relief.

Andhra High Court

V. Rajeshwar Rao vs N. Yadagiri Reddy And Others on 11 July, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 (5) ALD 102, 2000 (4) ALT 366

Bench: B P Rao

Print Page

How to ascertain main relief and ancillary relief for the purpose of calculation of court fees?

V. Rajeshwar Rao vs N. Yadagiri Reddy And Others 2000 (5) ALD 102,  2000(4)ALT366

Civil - court fee - Sections 6 and 24 of Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - revision filed by plaintiff against Order requiring him to pay Court fee in view of subsequent amendment in plaint - plaintiff firstly sought perpetual injunction - defendant constructed building in disputed land despite of interim injunction granted in favour of plaintiff - plaintiff now filing suit for possession by making amendment in plaint in view of acts of encroachment - now possessory relief becomes dominant and other relief ancillary - relief of possession not to be treated as ancillary simply because suit initially filed for injunction - court fee has to be paid on relief of possession.

The expression "main relief takes in almost every relief for which the suit is solely laid for. However, the expression "ancillary relief has to be read in conjunction with the main relief i.e., it should be aiding or auxiliary to the main relief. An ancillary relief can in a given circumstance be the main relief but not vice versa. In a simpliciter suit for injunction, the relief of injunction comprises the main relief but when a relief which is of a substantial nature viz., possession or declaration is added to it, the relief of injunction which was hitherto the main relief scales down to the position of a consequential relief. There .are ample distinctive features in between main and ancillary reliefs. Apart from being essentially paramount and predominant, the main relief is a substantial in nature forging on substantive and vested rights. Possessory relief is the basis and any form of injunction - either mandatory or perpetual - springs from it. To see if a relief is subsidiary or main, the real test is to see whether one relief can be granted without the other. Here in this case in view of the very facts alleged, either of the reliefs of injunctions cannot be granted unless the petitioner seeks possession. Therefore, the possessory relief becomes dominant and constitutes as the main. Simply because initially the suit is filed for injunction and the other reliefs of declaration or possession have been added in view of changed circumstances or warranting circumstances on the appearance of the defendant, the relief of injunction does not remain as the main relief making the other reliefs of declaration or possession as ancillary thereto. In fact, in any given case, the reliefs of declaration and possession necessarily constitute the main reliefs and these reliefs would always go with the other incidental reliefs of injunction either perpetual or mandatory depending on the facts of each case. Subsequent addition of any such substantial relief would not make it ancillary to the relief already existing merely because such relief was the initial foundation for the suit. The petitioner-plaintiff having filed the suit initially for injunction and in view of the alleged subsequent acts of encroachment and construction, the reliefs of possession and mandatory injunction were added lateron. These reliefs, even according to the plaintiff, are in fact based on the subsequent cause of action. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the relief of possession constitutes the main relief and any other reliefs of injunction either perpetual or mandatory fall behind the same and become ancillary to the same.

Print Page

Whether party can reserve main relief to avoid payment of court fees and claim only consequential relief?

As the relief sought for in the suit is based on an alleged
agreement for sale, seeking leave for the main relief of filing suit for
specific performance, but filing only a suit for permanent injunction to
restrain the other party to the alleged agreement from alienating or
selling the property to any third party is not legally maintainable, as per
Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below, without
considering the plea of the plaintiff and the defence raised by the
respondent, simply passed one word order, "Permitted", which is totally
erroneous, that shows only the non-application of the mind by the Court
below. When the main relief should be for seeking specific performance of
the agreement, as per the pleadings in the plaint, the said main relief
cannot be reserved by any party, in order to avoid payment of heavy
court fee and file a suit, seeking bare permanent injunction, not to
alienate or sell the property to any third party, would certainly be against
the laudable principle of preventing vexatious litigations again and again
against the defendant, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed by the
Court below against law and the same is liable to be set aside, to meet
the ends of justice.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09-01-2015
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
C.R.P (PD).No.2850 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013

R.Chendilvel vs G.Damodaran

Citation;AIR 2015 Madras 96

Print Page