G. C. MATHUR, J. :- The main question for determination in these cases is whether the two suits, out of which the special appeals and the civil revision arise, are covered by sub-section (iv) (a) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, as amended in U. P. In both the suits, reliefs for declaration and injunction have been prayed for. The contention of the Chief Inspector of Stamps is that both the suits are to obtain declaratory decrees where the consequential relief of injunction has been prayed for and are, therefore, governed by sub-section (iv) (a) of Section 7 of the Act. According to him, since the consequential relief in both the suits is with reference to immovable property, court-fee has to be paid on the full value of the immovable property. The plaintiffs in the two suits, on the other hand, say that the injunction prayed for is not a consequential relief to the declaratory relief and the suits are not governed by sub-section (iv) (a). According to them they are liable to pay a fixed court-fee under Art. 17(iii) of Schedule II on the relief of declaration and a separate court-fee under sub-section (iv-B) (b) of the Section 7 on the relief of injunction on one-tenth of the value of the immovable property in the first suit filed in 1953, and on one-fifth of the value of the immovable property in the second suit filed in 1960.

The plaintiffs have further contended that, even if the suits are covered by sub-section (iv) (a), the relief of injunction should be valued in accordance with the provision of sub-section (iv-B) (b) which lays down how a relief for injunction has to be valued for purposes of payment of the court-fee. The question can conveniently be split up into the following two questions :-

1. Whether the relief of injunction prayed for in the two suits is a consequential relief to the relief of declaration? and

2. how is the relief in the two suits to be valued if they are governed by sub-section (iv) (a)?

2. So far as the first question is concerned, the controversy is as to what is the meaning of the expression "consequential relief" used in sub-s. (iv) (a). In Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal, AIR 1932 All 485 (FB), a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court has laid down certain conditions or tests which should all be satisfied before a relief can be called a consequential relief. This decision was given in respect of Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act before its amendment in the U. P. Legislature. The revision and the special appeals have been referred to this Bench to consider whether the conditions and tests laid down by the Full Bench for determining whether a relief is a consequential relief or not still hold good. The questions arise in the circumstances set out below :-

3. Suit No. 83 of 1953, out of which the special appeals arise, was filed by Sri N. A. Guzdar and 16 other Parsis against Sri S. T. Shapoorji and 24 other Parsis on the allegation that "The Barame Jashane Roze Bahram Mandali" of Allahabad was a socio-religious association of the Parsis, that it had constructed a hall known as Bazam Gandhi Hall, that a meeting was convened on February 14, 1952, for winding up the Mandali and for transferring the hall and that the meeting and the resolutions passed thereat were illegal and not binding. The relief prayed for were :

"1. That it may be declared that the entire proceedings of meeting of 14-2-1952, including the resolutions passed thereat are illegal, ultra vires and null and void as regards the Mandali which is neither bound by them nor can be wound up for any reasons whatsoever.

2. That the defendants be restrained from interfering with or obstructing in any manner whatsoever the plaintiffs in the use and enjoyment of the 'Bazam Gandhi Hall' property belonging to the Mandali, as members thereof."

The first relief of declaration was valued at Rs. 5,000/- and the fixed court-fee of Rs. 18/12/- was paid thereon. The relief of injunction was valued at Rs. 200/-and a court-fee of Rs. 50/- was