( 1 ) PLAINTIFF Guru Ravi Das Jainti Samorah Samiti has filed this suit for declaration praying for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the land in dispute. The defendants in this case are the Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority.

( 2 ) THE land is situated in village Tughlakabad New Delhi and is alleged to be in their possession. Their main grie vance is that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and they cannot interfere in the right or title of the plaintiff and without giving a show cause notice they cannot be allowed to inter fere in the possession of the plaintiff and they cannot be allowed to demolish the property without giving due and proper notice to the plaintiff. The action of the defendants is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of jurisdiction the suit has been valued at Rs 15 lakhs but for the purpose of court fee the plaintiff has paid fixed court fee of Rs 19. 50. There is no mention that any notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code has been given to the Union of India or to Delhi Administration before institution of the present suit. There is also no mention that notice under Section 53b of the Delhi Development Act has been served upon the Delhi Development Authority before filing the suit.

( 4 ) THE office has raised an objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee. According to the office objection, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court fee should be the same and court fee should have been paid on Rs. 15 lakhs being the jurisdictional value given by the plaintiff in this suit.

( 5 ) MR Chechi learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced arguments on the plea that it is a suit for declaration simpliciter and he has right to pay court fee as per his choice and the court fee of Rs 19. 50 has been correctly paid. He relied upon the decision of Punjab High Court in Jai Kishna Das vs Babu Ram and others AIR 1967 PUNJAB 263 insuppor tof his contention that the decisions on the question of court fee payable on a plaint can neither depend on the pleas raised in defence nor on the maintainability of the suit as framed or the assumption that the court must spell out of the plaint upn such a claim which is ultimately capable of being decreed. According to him the relief claimed by him is only of declaration and no consequential relief follows and therefore objection raised by the office is frivolous.

( 6 ) I have given my considered thought to the submissions made by the counsel for plaintiff. Every case depends upon its own facts. In this case the main grievance of the plaintiff is that Union of India Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Administration are unnecessarily interfering ill its possession and they cannot be allowed to demolish the property without giving proper notice to the plaintiff. From the averments made in the plaint it is apparent that Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority are threatening to demolish and dispossess the plaintiff, which act according to the plaintiff is illegal as no show cause notice has been issued. Hon ble Judgesof,the Supreme Court in the case of JANAKIRAMA IYER VS NILAKANTA IYER AIR 1962 S. C. 633 held that in construing the plaint the court must have regard to all the relevant allegations made in the plaint and must look at the substance of the matter and not its form. Supreme Court in the case of SATHAPPA CHETTIAR VS RAMANA THAN CHETTIAR AIR 1958 S. C. 245 observed that:

"if the scheme laid down for computation of fees payable insuits covered by the several sub-sections of Sec. 7 is considered, it would be clear that, in respect of suits falling under sub-sec, (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purpose of court-fees. The theoretical basis for this provision appears to be that in cases in which the pl