Misra and Kanhaiyaji, J.

The question involved in this appeal is the amount of court fee payable in a suit for setting aside a certificate sale and for a declaration that the sale was vitiated by fraud, etc. The certificate sale was held for Rs.25,000/- which was the value of the suit, and for the prayer of injunction, the valuation put by the plaintiff was Rs.1000/- court fee was paid accordingly, it is stated that the valuation for the purpose of court fee was Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.1000/- on which court fee paid by it was accepted, but since the suit was for a declaration that the certificate sale was vitiated by fraud, etc., the court had to record a finding as to the actual value of the property. That was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- which fact was taken into consideration by the court below in recording a finding on the plaintiff's case of fraud. The suit having been decreed, Sheonath Saraff, the auction purchaser in the certificate sale, has presented this first appeal to this Court.

2. According to the stamp report, the amount of court fee payable will be on the sum of Rs.4,01,000/- the actual market value of the property and the value of the relief for injunction, as found by the learned Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad. At this stage we are not concerned with the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, because the order passed by the Taxing Officer has been accepted by the appellant, and court fee has been paid on that amount. The Stamp Reporter has, however, called upon the respondent, Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Private Limited, to pay additional court fee on the value of the property, being Rs.4,01,000/- in the court below also as the plaintiff brought the suit for setting aside the certificate sale of this property, together with the relief for injunction. The matter has been placed before us for a decision on the question.

3. The Stamp Reporter relies upon a decision of this Court in (1) Pandit Brij Krishna Das V. Chaudhury Murli Rai (4 Patna Law Journal 703) and in an unreported order of this Court in (2) Second Appeal no. 80 of 1961. In the former case the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that a decree obtained against them and others and a sale held thereunder were void on the ground of fraud. It was held that the plaintiffs were bound to pay advalorem court fee on the value of their share in the property sold, and not merely advalorem fee on the amount of the decree. The plaintiffs valued the suit for purpose of court fee at Rs.3,976/- which was the value of their four annas share of Rs.15,904/- which was the amount deposited by the plaintiffs in court in payment of the decree-holder's decree and interest thereon. The plaintiffs did not claim any interest in the remaining twelve annas share, and hence for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit was valued at Rs.15,904/- A Division Bench of this Court held that if there had been no sale in execution of the money decree for Rs.15,904/- that decree being a. joint decree, the loss to the plaintiffs would have been Rs.15,904/- and they would have had to pay court fee on that sum, but the sale having taken place, the loss to the plaintiffs was the value of their interest in the property sold, that is, four annas share in the entire properties, the value of which, according to the plaint, was Rs.2,20,000/-. The plaintiffs were, accordingly, required to pay court fee on Rs.55,000/-. It is not necessary to refer to other questions which were raised in that case, the stamp report points out that in that case the view adopted by this Court was that since under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is required to pay court fee ad valorem, that should mean actual market value of the property which the plaintiff seeks to recover after a declaration of the nature made in that suit, which was that the decree obtained did not bind the plaintiffs and that it was void because it was vitiated by fraud. This decision is frequently referred to in stamp report in su