V. S. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) SECTION 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act as amended by the Court Fees (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1953 as extended to Delhi runs as follows :-

"7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- ** ** ** (iv) In Suits- ** ** ** (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consesequential relief is prayed, ** ** ** according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal : 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. "

( 2 ) IT is common ground between the parties that in a former suit jointly filed by the appellant and the Respondent Mo. I against the Respondents 2 to 6, a compromise decree was passed according to which the appellant and Respondent No. 1 jointly in one year and the Respondents 2 to 6 jointly in the next year were to alternately manage the following private wakf property, namely, houses known as Thakurdwara Raja Ji Sukh Rai which include a Thakurdwara, attached shops and godowns situated at Gali Peepal Mahadee, Delhi.

( 3 ) THE present suit was instituted by the appellant alleging that the Respondent No. 1 did not allow the appellant to share in the management of the property and there was friction between them. He, therefore, in effect prayed that the Court should divide the joint right of management of the appellant and Respondent No. 1 into two separate shares so that the appellant would manage the property in one year while the Respondents 2 to 6 would manage it next year, the Respondent No. 1 would manage in the year thereafter and Respondents 2 to 6 would again manage it for one year after which the turn of the appellant should come. The suit is opposed by the Respondent No. I on the ground that the compromise provides for joint management by the appellant and the Respondent No. 1 and this arragement cannot be varied at the instance of the appellant alone.

( 4 ) THE relief prayed for in the plaint is a declaration that the appellant and the Respondent No. 1 are entitled to manage the property separately for one year each alternately during the period of their joint turn or in such other manner as the Court may determine and the consequential relief of injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from interfering in such separate management by the appellant. For the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs. 130. 00 for the relief of declaration coupled with the consequential relief by way of injunction. The Respondent No. 1 objects to the valuation on the ground that in view of the Punjab Amendment of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff appellant was bound to pay court-fees on the market value of the property which was jointly manageable by the parties and in which the plaintiff appellant was claiming to be entitled to a separate management for one half of the period for which the appellant and the Respondent No. 1 were entitled to joint management so that the Respondent No. 1 should also separately manage the property for the other half of the period of the joint management of the appellant and the Respondent No. 1. The objection to the valuation of the relief was rejected by the trial Court but was allowed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi. Hence this second appeal against the order directing the plantiff to pay court-fees en the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the joint management of all the parties.

( 5 ) THE question for decision is whether the relief sought by the plan- tiff is with reference to any property" within t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document