( 1 ) HEARD parties Counsel on the points of court fee and the question of the rejection of the plaint in its present form at length.

( 2 ) IN this suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff seek the following reliefs:

(A) A decree for declaration may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the agreement of sale dated 13/3/1994 between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding transfer of defendants right, title and interest under the agreement dated 15/10/1992 executed between them-M/s. Inder Paratap Singh HUF for the allotment of the 11th floor of the proposed multistoreyed building known as `narain Manzil ,23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi subsists between the parties to this suit.

(B) A decree for permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that they have no right to transfer any of their right, title and interest in the agreement dated 15/10/1992 mentioned in prayer (a) above in favour of any person other than the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff claims that he is real estate agent and Mrs. Sumitra Chistion 15/10/1992 as trustee of M/s. Satazo trust applied to M/s. Inder Pratap singh HUF through plaintiff as an agent for allotment of the entire 11th floor approximately 8,000 sq ft. The builder agreed to sell entire 11th floor to M/s. satazo Trust at the rate of Rs. 3,850. 00 per sq. ft. An agreement to sell by Mr. Inder Pratap Singh on behalf of M/s. Inder paratap Singh HUF was signed in favour of Mrs. Sumitra Chisti. An allotment letter was also issued. Both these documents were witnessed by the plaintiff. On 18/12/1992 an appropriate authority under Section 269-UC of Income Tax Act by its order dated 18/12/1992 issued no objection to the transfer for a sum of Rs. 3,08,00,000. 00. On March 13,1994 an agreement to sell was executed between M/s. Satazo Trust through Mrs. Sumitra Chisti and the plaintiff as the purchaser for a sum of Rs. 4,84,00,000. 00 through two cheques dated 13/3/1994. No Objection Certificate was sought again from the appropriate authority under section 269-UC of Income Tax Act. On 18/5/1994 Appropriate Authority issued No Objection to the transfer. Accordingly sale transaction was to be completed within a period of six months by execution of the transfer deeds in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees. The prices shot up. The defendants published advertisement on July 15,1994 and one H. S. Sandhu visited the office of the plaintiff asking him to execute a cancellation deed and the notice dated 18/7/1994 was also received. As the cloud has been cast on the right of the plaintiff on the agreement to sell dated 13/3/1994 the suit for declaration for permanent injunction has been filed.

( 4 ) AFTER initially clearing the plaint for registering and listing the case, an office objection was raised that "value on relief of declaration both for jurisdiction and court fee ought to be same, and C/f ad valorem is to be paid thereon"

( 5 ) THE plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint to convert this suit into a suit for specific performance. That application was rejected and appeal was filed. This appeal was also dismissed as infructuous since the application for amendment was withdrawn with liberty to plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance, separate suit has also been filed.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff claims that the plaint is adequately stamped for the suit is not for declaration with regard to any property. The property is not yet constructed. Suit is for declaration with regard to a contract entered into between the parties on 13/3/1994.

( 7 ) ON the other had, learned Counsel for the defendant submits that from the allegations made and the relief of injunction as made in prayer (b), from the relief of declaration as made in prayer (a) and thus consequential relief, since relief could be granted only in the event of plaintiff succeeding in his prayer for declara