The valuation of an injunction for the purpose of court fees is not based on the amount of the taxes sought to be avoided, but on the value of the relief to the plaintiff.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff is directed against the order, dated 17-9-1958, passed by Shri D. K. Munshi, Second Additional District judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1959 passed by Shri R. Saxena, Sub-Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Regular. Case No. 59 of L953.

( 2 ) 9-1938, with the then Government of the former State of Bhopal, the material terms of which are as follows :

"that the company was to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per year to the government of Bhopal in lieu of which the company was to get certain concessions in respect of land taxes and other taxes payable to the municipal Committee including the water rate". Clause (6) of the agreement provided as follows : "the Government of Bhopal undertakes to get from the Municipality for the company during such time as they shall carry on their business such quantity of water not exceeding 5,00,000 gallons a day as shall he required for the business of the Company, including therein all water which may be required for any building operations which may be carried on upon the land without any charge. "

Further Clause 9 of the agreement provided as follows :"the Company agrees to pay to the Municipality existing rates if these are continued at the rates now in force. Such taxes would not exceed in the amount in the aggregate to Rs. 100 per annum. Should the rates of these taxes be increased or should other taxes be imposed the said company agrees to pay such increases if they are of general application but subject to a maximum of Rs. 300 per annum in the aggregate. "

( 3 ) THE respondent served a notice, dated 24-4-1950, (Ex. P. 16) upon the appellant, intimating that Clause 6 of the agreement dated 24-9-1938, was inoperative, as it contravened Section 201 of the Bhopal Municipalities Act. The respondent called upon the appellant to pay the water rate at the rate of As. 0-120 per 1,000 gallons, as was sanctioned by the Government under Rule 5 of the water Supply Rules applicable to the Municipality. By a further notice dated 15-31951 (Ex. P. 17) the respondent called upon the appellant to pay the amount of rs. 3,000/-which was payable to the former State of Bhopal by Clause 1 of the agreement dated 24-9-1938 (Ex. P, 40), As the appellant refused to pay the water rate as demanded, the respondent started proceedings for recovery of the amount through coercive processes. ( 4 ) IN view of the threat of the demand being recovered by coercive processes under the provisions of the Bhopal Municipalities Act, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from recovering the amount. The appellant, in the plaint, alleged that it was exempted from payment of the water rate in view of the agreement, dated 24-9-1938 (Ex. P. 40), and, as such, the respondent could not recover any tax under the provisions of the Municipalities act. The only operative agreement was the one referred to, which provided for the extent of the liability and the mode of recovery. The material allegations are contained in para 20 of the plaint, as also the relief clause. Paragraph 20 is as follows :

"the plaintiff contends and submits that the defendant's alleged demand of Rs. 67. 775-5-0 and the alleged threat to levy Warrant of Distress is unlawful, wrongful, and/or ultra vires the Bhopal Municipalities Act and /or beyond jurisdiction, authority and competency of the defendant and are invalid, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and/or are a nullity on inter alia the following grounds : (a) The plaintiff derives its supply of water from the lake through a pipeline maintained by the plaintiff and the defendant does not supply any water to the plaintiff nor does the defendant maintain the said pipe-line through which water is drawn to the plaintiff's said factory. (b) The alleged fixation of rate by the Government is a nullity. (c) The defendant has no