The interpretation of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs influenced the court's decision on the applicability of Sections 7(iv)(c) and 7(xi)(cc) of the Court-fees Act.

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs and it is directed against Order No. 40, dated the 9th April 1964, passed by the learned Munsif, calling upon the plaintiffs to pay deficit Court-fee. In this suit, several issues have been framed including issue No. 6, for an enquiry whether the suit has been under-valued or not and whether the Court-fee paid is sufficient or not. This issue was taken up as a preliminary issue by the learned Munsif for the purpose of ascertaining the valuation of the disputed land. According to the plaintiffs they had valued the suit at Rs. 10. According to the defendants, the valuation of the property in dispute would be Rs. 5,000. The learned Munsif has held that the property in dispute should be valued at Rs. 2,000. An argument was advanced before the learned Munsif to the effect that this suit is governed by Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court-fees Act and not by Section 7(iv)(c) and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be called upon to pay the Court-fee according to the valuation of the property in dispute. The learned Munsif has held that this suit will be governed by Section 7(iv)(c). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the conclusion of the learned Munsif is correct. It has been mentioned in the order under revision that the plaintiffs have asked for a declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs have been read over in this Court and it is clear that this is a suit which must be governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act and not by Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Act. This application must, therefore, fail and it is dismissed but under the circumstances, without costs.