( 1 ) THE prayers in this suit are as follows: (a) grant a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff Company and against Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to the effect that the Agreement to Sell dated 19. 11. 2003 entered into by Defendant No. 3, is illegal, null and void and is non-est is of no effect and is not binding on the plaintiff Company; (b) a decree of permanent injunction may also be granted in favour of the Plaintiff Company and against the defendants No. 1 and 2 and not to disturb the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff Company of plot No. 47, Block no. 9, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi or any part of the said plot; (c) pass such other or further orders as this Hon ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) THE valuation of this suit is contained in paragraph 4 which read thus: the value of the Suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is as under: court Fees Valuation Court Fees paid i) For grant of decree of declaration that the Agreement dated 19. 11. 03 entered into by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendants no. 1 and 2 is illegal, null, void and non-est and is not binding on the Plaintiff Company. Rs. 200/- Rs. 20/- ii) For the relief of permanent injunction, restraining Defendants No. 1 and 2 from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff s plot No. 47, Block-9, Industrial Area, Kirti nagar, New Delhi Rs. 130/- Rs. 13/- ------------- ------------- Total Rs. 330/- Rs. 33/- jurisdiction i) For the relief of declaration of the value shown in agreement to sell dated 19. 11. 2003. Rs. 77,00,000/- ii) For the relief of injunction. Rs. 130/- -------------------- Total Rs. 77,00,130/- --------------------

( 3 ) THE caption of the Plaintiff states it is a suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

( 4 ) ON the first date of hearing the Plaintiff pressed for and received an injunction directing the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the Plaintiff in the suit property. Bawa shiv Charan Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, argues that it is only the Plaint that has to be read. There can be no two opinions on this proposition. He, however, makes an oral submission that the suit should be treated as one for Declaration simplicitor. It is not possible to view the suit as such and if the Plaintiff was desirous of giving up any relief, he ought to have filed an application for its deletion. As has already mentioned, he has already sought and obtained an injunction.

( 5 ) THE facts of the case are that the Plaintiff allegedly entered into an Agreement to Sell with defendants No. 1 and 2. The Plaintiff had also entered into an Agreement to Sell with Defendants No. 3 to 9 to purchase their fifty per cent share of the property. Defendant No. 10 is the the fifty per cent owner of the remaining lease hold rights. The contention of Bawa Shiv charan Singh is that the provisions of Section 8 of the suit Valuation Act are not applicable since Section 7 (iv) (c) does not find mention therein. As has already been noticed above the suit is not one for simplicitor declaration since an injunction has been prayed for also. A conjoint reading of Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act and Section 7 of the Court Fees Act enjoins that the valuation for the purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction must be the same. As has already been seen the suit has been valued for the relief of Declaration of Rs. 77 lakhs. The Plaint must also therefore be valued for Rs. 77 lakhs for the purposes of court fees and the appropriate court fees must be paid.

( 6 ) THIS question had arisen on the last date of hearing also but the contention of Bawa Shiv Charan singh still remains that the Plaint has been correctly valued and that ad volerm court fees has not to be paid. The contention is rejected. Reference to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Krishna chandra Versus Mahabir Prasad and others AIR 19