JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - The question, which 40 arises for consideration in this revision, is as to how the relief for demolition of constructions should be valued for purposes of court-fees. The case has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge as there is conflict between two Single Judge decisions of this Court.

2. In the suit, out of which this revision arises, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs against the State of U. P. :-

" (A) -A decree concelling the land acquisition proceedings in Case No. 6615711 146 taken by defendant be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing the defendant to demolish the constructions and plantations in dispute as detailed below within the time prescribed by the Court and in case of the defendant's failure to demolish the same within the prescribed period of time, directing demolition of the same through the court Amin at the defendant's expense.

(B) Decree for possession over the lot plot in Suit No. 107/1 corresponding to new plots 117 and 118 situate in village Kithuri Itwa, tappa Kapri Mahson, Pergana Mahuli West, District Basti, be passed in favour of the plaintiff, ejecting the defendant from the same."

3. Paragraph 12 of the plaint, in which the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fees was given, reads :-

"12. That the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of reliefs (A) and .(B) are laid at Rs. 56,376. 38 P. and Rs. 300/- respectively, the same being the market-value of the plaintiff's property in suit according to 20 times of the annual revenue and for purposes of court-fees Rs. 50/- for relief (A) and Rs. 30/- for relief (B) according to twice the annual revenue and for purposes of cancellation, the valuation of land in suit involved according to its assumed rental of Rs. 2/8/- is Rs. 50/- on which Rs. 5/- court-fee is paid."

4. On February 8, 1965, the Stamp Reporter reported that, in addition to the court-fees paid, an additional court-fees of Rs. 485/-was payable as a court-fee of Rs. 500/- was a. payable on the relief of demolition of constructions etc. under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act. Against this report, objections were filed by the plaintiffs. By his order dated March 15, 1965, the Civil Judge held that the court-fee paid was sufficient. Against this order, the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P., has come up to this Court in revision.

5. A suit for demolition is really one for a mandatory injunction directing demolition. To such a suit Section 7 (iv-B) applies. The relevant portion of this provision is as follows :-

"7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follow :-

........................

(iv-B) - in suits -

(a) ........................

(b) to obtain an injunction .................................... according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint :

6. Provided that such amount shall not be less than one-fifth of the market-value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought or Rs. 200/- whichever is greater.

7. Provided further that in the case of suits falling under clauses (a) and (b) , the amount of court-fee leviable shall, in no case, exceed Rs. 500/-.

8. Explanation 1. When the relief sought is with reference to an immovable property,

"the market-value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with sub-sec. (v) , (v-A) or (v-B) of this section, as the case may be.

Explanation 2. ................."

Upon a plain reading of this section it is clear that the relief for an injunction has to be valued, for purposes of court-fees, according to the market-value of the property involved or affected by the relief. Sub-sec. (v) of Section 7 is applicable in the present case as it deals with lands, buildings or gardens. Buildings and gardens have to be valued according to the provisions of paragraph (II) of sub-sec. (v) which again provides