A decree for declaration of title to money or other property is not a decree for money or other property.

Judgment

SHAH, J.:- One Radhey Lal instituted Suit No. 4 of 1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaunpur, for a declaration that he was the "owner in possession" of the estate left by Dhan Devi. To that suit Ram Krishan Burman was impleaded as a party-defendant. This suit was decreed ex parte. Ram Krishan then filed Suit No. 14 of 1956 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaunpur, against the heirs of Radhey Lal (who had died since the passing of the decree in Suit No. 4 of 1950), claiming that he was "appointed an heir by Dhan Devi" of properties described in lists B. J & D in the plaint, that the dispute concerning the inheritance to the estate left by Dhan Devi was settled between him and Radhey Lal, that Radhey Lal admitted his title to the properties in Lists B. J & D and it was agreed that in the properties in Lists A, B. J & D Radhey Lal had 11/16th share and that he had 5/16th share, that a memorandum was drawn up in that behalf, and that Radhey Lal represented to him that a compromise decree will be obtained in that suit, but thereafter taking advantage of his ignorance Radhey Lal obtained a decree ex parte. The following substantive reliefs were claimed by the plaintiff.

"(a) that a declaratory decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the properties in Lists A, B. J& D be passed;

(b) in case in the opinion of the Court prayer (a) cannot be granted, then, alternatively, declaration declaring the plaintiff as the owner of properties in B J & D being the stridhana of Rani Dhan Dei Kaur be issued, decree in Suit No. 4 of 1950 has no adverse effect on the rights of the plaintiff; "

The plaintiff valued the properties in dispute at Rs. 5,99,503/6/3, but on the footing that he had claimed a mere declaration paid Rs.18/12/- as Court-Fees as in a claim under Sch. II Cl 17 (iii) of the Court-Fees Act.

2. The Inspector of Stamps reported to the Civil Judge that in his view the case fell within Sec. 7 (iv-A) as incorporated by the U. P. State Legislature, and court-fee was chargeable according to the value of the subject-matter, and the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 3,522/8/- as court-fee on the plaint. The Civil Judge ordered the plaintiff to amend the plaint and to pay the court-fee remaining due.

3. The plaintiff appealed against the order of the Civil Judge to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court held that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was proper and set aside the order holding that the case did not fall within S. 7 (iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act. The State of U. P. has appealed to this Court with special leave.

4. Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act as enacted by the U. P. State Legislature insofar as it is relevant, reads:

"In suits for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market value, or an instrument securing money or other property having such value.

(1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title, was a party to the decree or the instrument, according to the value of the subject-matter, and

x x x x x"

There is no dispute that the plaintiff claimed a declaration adjudging void the decree in Suit No. 4 of 1950 declaring Radhey Lal to be the "owner in possession of the estate of Dhan Devi". The plaintiff by his Plaint had claimed two declarations in the alternative, and prima facie, the plaint was of the description in Sch. II, CI. 17 (iii) of the Court-Fees Act. But counsel for the State of U.\ P. contends that the reliefs claimed fell within Sec. 7 (iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act. Counsel says that the expression "decrees for money or other property" does not mean a decree awarding money or other property, but a decree concerning or relating to money or other property, and he says that where the Court declares the plaintiff s title to money or property simpliciter the decree is one for money or for other property. We are unable to agree with that contention. The expression "for" occurs twi