V.K. Gupta, CJ.—The short point involved for consideration in this Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 20.2.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, relates to the interpretation to be placed upon the second proviso to sub-section (iv), read with clause (e) of subsection (v), of Section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fee Act, 1968 (for short "1968 H.P. Act").

2. The facts, in brief, may be stated as under:

3. Petitioners - plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that 8 heads of property categorized (A) to (H) are owned and possessed by Devta Satya Narain, petitioner No. 1, who is the family deity of petitioner-plaintiff No. 2 and respondent - defendant No. 1 Lai Chand. In the suit, petitioners - plaintiffs also sought a further declaration that a perpetual lease executed by respondent - defendant No. 1 concerning half share of the land in categories (A) and (B), 174th share of the land in category (C), half share of the land in category (D) and the property in categories (E), (F), (G) and (H) in favour of respondents 2 and 3, be declared to be illegal, null and void, without authority and not binding on the petitioners plaintiffs and that this perpetual lease deed confers no right, title or interest upon respondents 2 and 3 with respect to the aforesaid property and all the revenue entries showing respondents 2 and 3 as the perpetual lessees of this property are illegal, void, of no effect or consequence and are not at all binding upon the parties. A consequential relief in the nature of an injunction was also claimed in the suit whereby respondents 2 and 3 were ordered to be restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of the petitioners with respect to the management of the aforesaid property by petitioner No. 2 in his capacity as Kardar/Manager. For ready reference and for facility of easy understanding of the import of the issue involved, I reproduce hereinbelow the relevant extracts of the prayer part of the aforesaid plaint, of course shorn of all unnecessary details. It reads thus: "Suit for declaration to the effect that the property of the following description: (A) to (H) ....................... is owned and possessed by Devta Satya Narain plaintiff, family deity of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1 having its temple/Sathan at Dibha - Age in the house of plaintiff No. 2. IT MAY FURTHER BE DECLARED THAT THE PATTA DWAM (perpetual lease) executed by defendant No. 1 concerning half share of the land detailed in Head Note A, B and H share of the land noted in Head Note (C) and H share of the land noted in Head Note (D) and property noted in Head Note (E), (F), (G) and (H), in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 may be declared to be illegal, null and void, without authority and not binding on the plaintiffs and the same may be declared to be of no consequence and effect. IT MAY STILL FURTHER BE DECLARED THAT the aforesaid perpetual lease deed dated and registered on 27.12.1999 confers no right, title and interest on defendants 2 and 3 and the revenue entries showing defendants 2 and 3 as perpetual lessee are also illegal, void, of no effect and consequence and not binding on the plaintiffs. IT MAY STILL FURTHER BE DECLARED THAT mutation No. 6021 phati Nathan, Kothi Nagar; mutation No. 2545 phati Katrain and mutation No. 5910 phati Nagar attested on the basis of aforesaid illegal perpetual lease deed are illegal, void and inoperative and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same. AS A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF DEFENDANT Nos. 2 and 3 may be restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of plaintiffs No. 1 and management of the aforesaid property by plaintiff No. 2 as Kardar/Manager by way of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction."

4. The defendants in the suit, in the written statements filed by them, raised objection about the improper valuation of the suit for the purposes