Relief for removal of defendant from management of temple and delivery of charge of temple and movables not a consequential relief to the relief for declaration.

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.:-

This is a reference under S.6-C(1), Court Pees Act by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Suit No.114 of 1951, Thakur Shri Krishna Chandraji v. Shyam Behari Lal, in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur.

2. Thakur Shri Krishna Chandraji and Bankey Behari Lal filed this suit against Shyam Behari Lal claiming several reliefs, the first two of which are:

"(a) that it be declared that the plaintiff No.2 is the sarbarakar of the plaintiff No.1, (b) that the defendant be removed from the management of the temple of plaintiff No.1 and the charge of the temple and movable therein be handed over to plaintiff No.2 as sarbarakar on behalf of the plaintiff No.1."

Court fee on relief (a) was paid according to Schedule II, Art.17, clause (iii) and on relief (b) according to clause (vi) of the same Article of the Court Pees Act.

3. The Inspector of Stamps reported to the Court concerned that the Court fee paid was insufficient and it ought to have been paid in accordance with the provisions of S.7(iv)(a) Court Fees Act on the market-value of the property as the reliefs in the suit were for declaration that plaintiff No.2 was the sarbarkar of plaintiff No.1 and that the defendant be removed from the management of the property of plaintiff No.1. The Inspector of Stamps expressed the opinion that the reliefs involved a declaration of title and consequential relief. The learned First Civil Judge did not agree with the report of the Inspector of Stamps and held that the Court fee paid was sufficient. It is subsequent to this order that this reference was made to this Court without taking recourse to the provision of S.6-B, Court Fees Act which empowers the Chief Inspector of Stamps to apply in revision against the order passed by a Court on the report of the Inspector of Stamps. The point in this reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is whether it is a case of declaratory decree with consequential relief in terms of S.7(iv)(a) and the plaint required art ad valorem Court fee of Rs.2,284/ 14/-on the jurisdictional value of the property involved.

4. The learned Standing Counsel in support of the reference has referred us to the case reported in - Madan Mohan v. Tejram George Coronation Hindu School Association, AIR 1949 All 267 (A). In that suit the principal reliefs sought were that (a) it be declared that the plaintiff was in fact the President of a certain school and was entitled to function as such; (b) it be declared that certain resolutions and all the proceedings carried out by the defendants were void and ultra vires; (c) the defendants be restrained from altering or adding to the name of the institution; (d) the defendant No.2 be restrained from functioning as the President; and (e) the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs functioning as the President.

It was held that the injunctions sought were not independent reliefs but necessarily flowed from the declarations sought for in reliefs (a) and (b). They could be granted only if the title of the plaintiff to the aforesaid declarations was established and that, therefore, they were consequential reliefs. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that relief (b) in the present suit with respect to the removal of the defendant from the management of the temple and with respect to the delivery of the charge of the temple and moveables to plaintiff No.2 was a consequential relief to the declaratory relief (a) because it flowed from it and could not be granted till the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the desired declaration. If the expression "consequential relief" simply means a relief which flows from the declaratory decree and the relief which cannot be granted until the declaratory relief is granted, the contention would be sound because it makes no difference what from the relief flowing from the declaratory relief may have. It was observed in the aforesaid 1949 case (A) at p.208:

"A consequential relief means a