JUDGMENT :- This is a reference under S. 5, Court-fees Act and raises three questions for decision, viz., (1) whether one valuation should be put under S. 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act, subject to correction by the Court under S. 8(c), Court-fees Act; (2) where the defendant and not the plaintiff is before the Court, what is the procedure to be followed for valuing the relief and (3) whether S. 17(2), Court-fees Act as amended would apply to cases arising under S. 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act.

2. The substance of the plaint, as it appears from the report of the Stamp Reporter, is that the plaintiff brought the suit out of which the appeal arises on the allegation that the disputed property belonged to one Akazaddin and others. The plaintiff purchased the same by a registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 from the said Akazaddin and others in the benami of his brother-in-law defendant 1. The plaintiff went into possession of the property purchased by him. Later on, defendant 1 sold the disputed property to defendant 2 who in collusion with defendants 3 and 4, is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed property. The plaintiff accordingly brought the suit for declaration that defendant 1 is the benamdar of the plaintiff in respect of the disputed property and for a permanent injunction retraining the defendants from taking possession.

3. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,000 for declaration and Rs. 10 for permanent injunction. A sum of Rs. 20 was paid on the prayer for declaration and a sum of annas 12 only was paid on the prayer for permanent injunction.

4. The suit was decreed on contest.

5. An appeal was taken by the contesting defendants to the lower appellate Court on the valuation as made in the plaint and court-fees were paid on the same footing. The appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

6. The present appeal has been taken by defendant 2 and in the memorandum of appeal court-fees have been paid on the same basis as it was paid in the Courts below.

7. The Stamp Reporter was of opinion that the mode of valuing the relief claimed in the plaint was contrary to S. 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act and that court-fees should be paid on a single valuation of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The learned advocate for the appellant having con-tested the view taken by the Stamp Reporter, the aforesaid points of difference were placed by the Stamp Reporter before the learned Registrar, Appellate Side, as a Taxing Officer of this Court.

8. The learned Registrar was of opinion that the questions involved are substantial questions and require a decision by the Court. The matter was referred to me as a Taxing Judge under the orders of the learned Chief Justice for giving my decision on the points already mentioned. I shall first take up the first question submitted to me for decision.

9. I have already stated the substance of the plaint which is to be found in the report of the Stamp Reporter and this is not disputed on behalf of the defendant appellant. The present case, therefore, is one where the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. The question is whether S. 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act is attracted to the facts of this case. Section 7(4)(c), Court-fees Act would apply if the suit is one for a declaration where a consequential relief is prayed for. The expression consequential relief has been defined to mean some relief which follows directly from the declaration, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained and which is not specifically provided for and cannot be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantial relief; Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal, 54 All 812 : (AIR (19) 1932 All 485 FB), Mt. Zeb-Ul-Nisa v. Din Mohammad, ILR (1941) Lah 451 : (AIR (28) 1941 Lah 97 FB). Tested in this light, the prayer for a permanent injunction in the present case is a consequential relief. The present case, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document