Proper valuation of the suit filed for declaration.

This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsiff of Tiruturaipundi calling upon the plaintiff in O.S. No. 407 of 1949 to pay additional court-fee. The allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendants are owners of neighbouring lands, that the defendants whose lands are on a higher level are attempting to pass on the surplus water of their lands to the lands belonging to the plaintiff by cutting the bund and that they have no right to do so. The prayers in the plaint are (1): for a declaration that the defendants 1 and 2 have no right to drain their water from their fields into the fields of the plaintiff and (2): for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting open the bund and draining their surplus water into the fields of the plaintiff. The plaintiff valued the former relief under section 7, clause (IV)(c) of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 10 and the latter relief under section 7, clause (IV)(d) at Rs. 10 and paid court-fee on Rs. 20.

The defendants raised an objection to the correctness of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 189 of 1950 for revising his valuation with reference to the first prayer. Plaintiff offered to pay fixed court-fee of Rs. 15 on that prayer, treating it as one coming under Article 17(b) of the second schedule. On this application the learned District Munsiff passed the following Order:

“The relief relates to an immovable property and the court-fee has to be paid as per the notification, namely, half the value as under section 7 clause (V)”.

It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

It will be noticed that the plaintiff himself valued the reliefs on the footing that they fall under section 7, clause (IV)(c) and (d) and on that basis put his own, valuation on those reliefs and paid court-fee. Though the application for amendment proceeded on the footing that the prayer for declaration did not fall under section 7, clause (IV)(c) the plaint as originally framed with reference to the relief for injunction stood untouched. The case therefore appears to have been presented in the lower Court on the footing that section 7, clause (IV)(d) applied and there is therefore some justification for the learned District Munsiff applying the notification relating to injunction. I will presently show that even applying that notification the order for payment of additional court-fee is erroneous. In this Court also arguments proceeded on the same lines. On behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the proviso in section 7, clause (IV)(c) applied only to cases in which the plaintiff claims a relief of possession and that even when injunction is prayed for under section 7, clause (IV)(d) the same principle would be applicable. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of Somayya, J., in Rajah K.J.V. Naidu, in re1. In answer to this contention it was argued by Mr. V.V. Raghavan, the learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Government Pleader that the authority relied on by Somayya, J., in Rajah K.J.V. Naidu, in re1: dealt with section 7. clause (IV)(c) and that with reference to injunction the decision of Wadsworth, J., in Venkataranga Rao v. Ramachandra Rao2, applied and that in view of the notification which came into force on 1st November, 1943, the decisions referred to by Somayya, J., in Rajah K.J.V. Naidu, in re1: were inapplicable and that the judgment in that case though decided after the notification did not deal with it and therefore the matter required reconsideration.

It will be convenient before examining these authorities to refer to the law on the subject before it was amended by the Madras Act IV of 1922. Section 7, clause (IV) of the Court-fees Act enacts that in the six classes of suits mentioned in that sub-section the plaintiff shall state the amounts at which he values the reliefs sought and the court-fee shall be payable according to the amo