Valuation of the suit for declaration of the scheme illegal and ultra vires.

The plaintiffs instituted O.S. No. 309 of 1950 in the District Munsiff’s Court, Tuticorin, a representative suit on behalf of themselves and other owners of properties within the Tuticorin Municipality in respect of which the defendants who are the Tuticorin Municipality published a scheme for the area covered by these properties as the area of Town Planning Scheme “D” of the Tuticorin Municipality. The suit was for a declaration that the “D” scheme propounded by the defendants under the Town Planning Act was illegal and ultra sires and for a permanent injunction prohibiting them from enforcing all or any provisions of the scheme against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 110 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 15 for declaration under Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court-Fees Act and for injunction at Rs. 1-1-0 under section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-Fees Act. An issue was raised as to the correctness of the court-fee paid which was tried as a preliminary issue. Besides, the Court-fee Examiner also issued a check slip that the suit should have been valued under the proviso to section 7, clause (iv)(c) of the Madras Court-Fees Act. Section 7, clause (iv)(c) relates to suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed and a proviso is added by the enactment of Madras Act V of 1932. That proviso is in the following terms:-

“Provided that in suits coming under sub-clause (c) of section 7(iv) in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, such valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immovable property calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (v) of this section.

The learned District Munsiff upheld the contention of the Court-fee Examiner and held that the proviso to section 7, clause (iv)(c) was applicable to the present case.

Section 4 of the Madras Town Planning Act (VII of 1920) says that a town-planning scheme may provide for several matters including the laying out the roads, etc., the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of buildings, bridges and other structures, the acquisition, by purchase of any land within the area included in the scheme, the construction of houses, the allotment or reservation of land for streets, roads, squares, houses, buildings, etc. On the publication of a draft scheme and its sanctioning by the Local Government no person shall erect, or proceed with, any building or work on without the permission of the Municipal Council, and persons intending to put up buildings shall conform to the directions of the’ Council, and the Council has, under section 19, the power to remove, pull down, or alter any building or to execute the work themselves. Persons injuriously affected may, under section 20, apply for compensation. Since the area covered by the scheme published by the Municipal Council, affects to a large extent the rights of owner of these properties and confers powers on the Municipality to interfere with such ownership of immovable properties, the argument that found support with the lower Court is the scheme concerns immovable properties, and the declaration asked for, viz., that the scheme is ultra vires and illegal, is a declaration in respect of immovable properties, and, injunction being the consequential relief the suit must be valued under the proviso to section 7(iv)(c) as a suit for declaration with consequential relief, as the relief is sought with reference to immoveable properties. The lower Court took the view that ‘in substance, the suit was for a declaration of the rights of the plaintiffs in the properties covered by the”D“scheme and the injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing all or any of the provisions of the scheme meant that the defendants were prohibited from altering the structures or interfering with the possession of the suit properties which again are the immovable properties and as such both the declaratio