In a suit for declaration with injunction, the value of the court fees and the value of jurisdiction must be one and it is the value for court fees stated in the plaint that will determine the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction.

1. The short question that falls for determination in this revision petition is whether the suit involving prayer of declaration with injunction is governed by Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and how much court fee is payable on the plaint?

2. The Plaintiffs have brought a suit for declaration with injuction against the residents of Hajan in respect of a plot of land as described in the plaint. The Plaintiffs have valued the relief of declaration for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 3000/-and have paid Rs. 10/- as court fees, and have also valued relief relating to injuction for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 10/-and have paid court fees ad-valorem on Rs. 10/-. When the case came up before the learned Sub-Judge, he ordered the plaintiffs to pay court fees ad-valorem on both the relief sought as in the view of the learned Judge the suit was governed by Sec 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act.

3. Appearing for the petitioners Shri S. K. Chaku has canvassed the proposition that the suit brought by the plaintiffs is in essence one for declaration. The relief of injuction sought by them is only ancillary and not consequential. According to the learned counsel the suit is not governed by Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the State Court Fees Act but by Schedule 2 of Art. 17 (iii) according to which only a fixed amount of Rs. 10/- is to be paid as court fees on relief of declaration irrespective of the value of jurisdiction. Learned counsel has referred me to A.I.R. 1954 Madras 188 in support of his argument.

4. In my opinion the contention advanced on behalf of the learned counsel is not well founded. It is elementary principle of construction of pleadings that the substance of the plaint is to be read in order to determine the nature of the suit. "The question of court fees is to be decided with reference to the averments made in the plaint. In a suit for declaration with injuction in order to come to a conclusion whether the declaration sought is accompanied by consequential relief, the test to be applied is whether the relief of injunction sought would flow directly from the declaration given, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained. In order to be a consequential relief the direct consequence must arise under the decree. If the decree sought is only for declaration which is not capable of execution then in that event the relief claimed may not be characterised as consequential but if the decree prayed for has got some coercive force against the party then in that event the relief claimed will be consequential." In the instant case the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration accompined by a further prayer of in junction against the defendants. In my opinion the plaintiffs will be deemed to have asked for consequential relief in so far as injunction is concerned. In this view of mine. I am fortified by a judgment of this court reported in 1972 K.L.J. 372. That was a case where the plaintiff had sought declaration with injunction. It was observed by the learned Judge deciding the suit in exercise of his original jurisdiction that the relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiff flew directly from the relief of declaration sought for by him and was as such a consequential relief as contemplated by Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. I am also supported in this view of mine by the observations made in A.I.R. 1937 Nagpur 14, A.I.R. 1958 All. 41, A.I.R. 1955 Cal 341 which are to the same effect

5. I am, therefore, of the view that the matter of court fees falls within the purview of Sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. According to that Section where a plaintiff brings a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where consequential relief is prayed, he must pay the court fees according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. This proposition of law was the subject matter in an appeal before the Supreme Court in case Chattiar Versus Ramnathan Chattiar, A.I.R. 1958 SC 245 wherein their Lordships

Click Here to Read the rest of this document