( 1 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Junior Standing Counsel and have gone through the report of the Inspector of Stamps and the opinion sent by the Taxing officer. It appears that in this case, the Taxing Officer paid more attention to only the first part of the declaration sought as relief (a) in the plaint and did not take into account the significance of the last part of the declaration sought.

( 2 ) THE declaration, that is sought as relief (a), really consists of three different declarations.

( 3 ) THE first was that the declaration dated 4th June, 1940, under Section 221 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, was null and void. The second declaration sought was that the plaintiff was as usual, entitled to allow the stall holders and hawkers on the Jamuna Road and its patri in village Usmanpur Maiku alias Katghar, Allahabad.

( 4 ) THE third and the last declaration sought was that the plaintiff was, as usual, entitled to realise the tahbazari dues from them without any interference fay the defendant (the Municipal Board allahabad ). There may be a great deal to be said for the view that the relief of the permanent injunction sought