The valuation for jurisdiction and court-fees must be the same, and if the valuation for court-fees is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the trial court will not have jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, praying for (a) a declaration that they had an occupancy right in the disputed land on the strength of a settlement and also on the ground of possession for more than twelve years; and (b) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession on the strength of a decree which had been obtained by them, In para. 14 of the plaint the plaintiffs allege that the present market value of the properties in dispute is Rs. 5500/- and the net profits from the properties amount to Rs. 175 and fifteen times the net profits will be equivalent to Rs. 2625/ -. The aforesaid amounts were mentioned for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court, but the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed lands and that defendants 1 and 2 were merely threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, valued the relief for an injunction against defendants 1 and 2 at Rs. 100/- and paid court lees upon that amount. In the trial Court an issue was raised as to whether the plaint had been sufficiently stamped. At the trial however, this issue was not pressed and it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. As a result of the trial, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and against that decree the plaintiffs have brought this appeal. The memorandum of appeal, which has been presented to this Court, has been valued by the plaintiffs at Rs. 5500/- presumably on the basis of the valuation which was given by the plaintiffs in para. 14 of the plaint as to the market value of the properties in dispute. The court-fees, however, were paid by the plaintiffs on the valuation of Rs. 100/ -. The Stamp Reporter took an objection to the manner in which the plaintiffs have put two valuations for jurisdiction and for court-fees. It was pointed out that under Section 8, Suits Valuation Act the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction must follow and be the same as the valuation for the purpose of court-fees, and that, at any rate, there must be a single valuation both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of court-fees.

( 2 ) THE Stamp Reporter has further suggested that in this case as the over-valuation made by the plaintiffs has resulted in the suit being tried by a Subordinate Judge, the plaintiffs must be directed to amend the valuation to a figure which is -above the maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. The matter was then considered by the Taxing Officer and upon a review of the authorities on the point, the Taxing Officer came to the conclusion that in view of the judg ment of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee in the case of --'salendra Nath Mitra v. Ram Chandra Pal', AIR 1921 Cal 84 (A), there was some difficulty in asking the plaintiffs to value the appeal or the plaint at a figure higher than Rs. 100/- and as the question is a question of general importance, he placed the matter before the learned Chief Justice fov being considered by a Judge.

( 3 ) MR. Panda appearing in support of the plaintiffs-appellants has conceded that the case comes under Section 7 (iv) but he contends that it comes under Section 7 (iv) (d), Court-fees Act. On behalf of the State, tiie learned Senior Government Pleader has contended that the case really comes under Section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees Act; On a consideration of the prayers made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, it seems to me that the prayer for injunction is really a consequential relief which flows from or is ancillary to the prayer for declaration made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. I therefore hold that the present case comes under Section 7 (iv) (c) but the question whether the case comes under Clause (c) or Clause (d) is of no practical importance in this case, because in either case