( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by the original plaintiff against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Surat in Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 1966 whereby the learned trial Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff fell under the provisions of sec. 7 (iv) (d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and accordingly called upon the plaintiff to pay additional Court fees amounting to Rs. 810. 00. He directed the plaintiff to pay this amount on or before 5th September 1967. The plaintiff has come in revision contending that his suit was rightly valued by him for the purposes of Court fees as it fell under the provisions of sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Act and that therefore no additional Court fees was legally due from him.

( 2 ) AT the hearing of this Civil Revision Application Mr. S. N. Shelat the learned Advocate appearing for the contesting opponents Nos. 1 2 and 4 contended that no revision application lies under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. His argument is that the decision about the sufficiency of Court fees or otherwise is a decision within the jurisdiction of the trial Court which deal with the suit and therefore under the provisions of sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code no Civil Revision Application lies to this Court.

( 3 ) COMING to the merits of the dispute it appears that the plaintiff has asked for the main relief of a declaration that he is entitled to ask for specific performance of the contract and for the further reliefs by way of mandatory injunctions against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the first alternative relief the plaintiff claims an amount of Rs. 5000/from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and asks for certain damages as determined by the Court. In the second alternative relief he requests the Court to rescind the contract between him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and to order defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 5000/and whatever damages are found appropriate by the Court. The plaintiff has paid Court fees at the rate of Rs. 30/per each of the reliefs for declaration and each of the three mandatory injunctions. In respect of the declaration and three mandatory injunctions the plaintiff has paid Rs. 120/in all; while in respect of the relief for the recovery of Rs. 5 0 he paid a Court fee of Rs. 350. 00. In all therefore the plaintiff paid of total Court fees of Rs. 470. 00. For the purpose of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 43 662

( 4 ) THE defendants raised a contention that the plaintiff has not valued his reliefs properly. The case of the defendants was that the suit for declaration and mandatory injunctions ought to have been valued under sec. 6 (iv) (d) of the Act. The learned trial Judge accepted this contention of the defendants and on the basis that the suit falls under sec. 6 (iv) (d) of the Act he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff should pay a total Court fee of Rs. 1160. 00. Deducting Rs. 350/that the plaintiff has already paid the trial Court directed him to pay an additional amount of Rs. 810. 00.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs contention before me is that the suit does not fall under sec. 6 (iv) (d) but it falls under sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Act. It was conceded by Mr. S. N. Shelat on behalf of the contesting opponents that if the suit does not fall under sec. 6 (iv) (d) the valuation made by the plaintiff would be proper except for the amount claimed by way of damages. Therefore the only question which requires consideration is:- Whether the suit is governed by sec. 6 (iv) (d) of the Act or not ? Sec. 6 (iv) (d) deals with a declaration of a right of ownership or some other right in immovable property. The learned trial Judge has held that in order to make himself entitled to a specific performance the plaintiff will have to prove the ownership of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property. He therefore came to the conclusion that in effect and substance the