( 1 ) THE petitioners plaintiffs by this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenge the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi dated 28th November, 1981 directing them to pay court fees on the amount of Rs. 23,668. 00.

( 2 ) BRIEFIV the facts are that Smt Bimla Ruli alias Kishna Kumari had deposited Certain amount in S. B. Account No 373/265 and Recurring Time Deposit Account No. 51/7230 in the Port Office at Najafgarh. She died on 22nd October, 1977. Gobind Gopal plaintiff No. I is her husband while the plaiiniffs No. 2 to 7 arc her sons and daughters. At the time of opening the said two acconiiti, it appears, Banwari Lal defendant was shown as her nominee in the said accounts. The plaintiffj on 20th November, 1978 filed the pi ei-ent suit for declaration that the nomination in favour of the defendant was illegal, that they alone being the legal heirs and representa- tives were entitled to receive the amount lying to the credit of the deceased Smt. Bimla Rani. The plain (iff further prayed for a perpetual injunclion restraining the defendant from receiving or realizing the amount lying in the said two accounts. According to the plaintiffs the total amount lying in the accounts is Rs. 23,668/. The trial Court held that the suit was for a declaration with consequential relief within the meaning of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (herein- after referred to as the Act ) and s the amount lying to the credit of the deceased was Rs. 23,668. 00 the plaintiffs were liable to pay court fees on that amount.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the present suit is for declaration that they being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased were entitled to receive the amount in question. He submits that the nomination in favour of the defendant was null and void and the plain- tiffs claim declaration to that effect and as consequential relief the plaintiffs would be entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from receiving the amount lying in the accounts. He says that the plaintiffs have a right to fix their own value on the relief for purposes of court fees and the Court can- not compel them to adopt for such purchases the value stated by them in the plaint for purposes ofjurisdiction. The plaintiffs have fixed Rs. 200. 00 as the value of the suit for purposes of court fees for the relief of declaration and Rs. 130. 00 asihevalue for purposes of court fees for the relief of injunction and have paid court fees Rs. 33. 00. The learned counsel for the defendant however, submits that the plaintiffs claim relief to the extent of Rs. 23,668. 00 being the amount lying in the accounts. He submits that when the jurisdic- tional value has been fixed at Rs. 23. 668/", the plaintiffs are bound to fix the same as the value for purposes of court fee under the proviso to section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act reads as under : 197 "the amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) In suits :- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where coniequential relief is prayed, (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought: Provided that the minimum Court-fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees. Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section. (v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens-according to the value of the subject