In suits for declaration with consequential relief, the plaintiff has the liberty to value the relief claimed for purposes of court-fee, but the court has the power to correct an undervaluation if it is unreasonable or arbitrary.

( 1 ) THIS appeal comes before us on a reference made by Newaskar J. for considering a question relating to court-tee on which divergent views have been expressed in Single Bench decisions of this Court. We have also heard, along with this reference, Civil Revision No. 244 of 1963, in which a similar question has been raised. This order shall dispose of the revision.

( 2 ) IN Civil Suit No. 8 of 1955, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that certain orders passed by officers of the Forest Department, whereby they imposed on him a liability for Rs. 16,318-8-0 on account of price of trees said to have been illegally felled and by way of penalty, were illegal and against the terms of the forest contract. The plaintiff further claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the aforesaid amount. Since that suit was dismissed, he has filed this appeal. As in the Court of first instance, he has, in this appeal, valued the relief claimed at Rs. 1,600/-for purposes of court-fee and at Rs. 16,318-8-0 for purposes of jurisdiction.

( 3 ) IN Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1961, out of which the revision arises, the plaintiff states that he is, having regard to the terms and conditions of the lease granted to him, not liable to pay the enhanced royalty amounting to Rs. 61,173. 41 demanded from him. The relief which he claims is: "plaintiff prays for a perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining him from claiming the demand ot Rs. 61,173. 41 np. or any part of it, as it is illegal, and/or from recovering any sum which is not legally payable by plaintiff. " although he has valued the suit for purposes of court-tee as well as jurisdiction at rs. 61,173. 41 np. , he paid the fixed court-fee of Rs. 20/- because "this suit is for a mere declaration. "

( 4 ) IT is obvious that Civil Suit No. 8 of 1955 and tne appeal therefrom arising are governed by Section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act, the relevant clauses of which read:

" (iv) In suits- (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, (d) to obtain an injunction, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal with a minimum fee of twenty rupees. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. "

It is also not disputed before us that the suit and the appeal are governed by clause (iv) (c) of the Act. The other suit, in which the relief claimed is perpetual injunction, cannot be regarded as a suit for mere declaration, in our opinion, that too is substantially a suit for declaration with the consequential relief of perpeual injunction governed by Clause (iv) (c) ibid.

( 5 ) SINCE in all cases covered by the various clauses of Sub-section (iv) of Section 7, liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value the relief for purposes of court-tee, it is urged before us that the Court cannot ask him to correct the valuation or require him to make up the deficiency in court-fee. In connection with this argument, Newaskar J. noticed the divergent views expressed in Straw Products ltd. , Bhopal v. Bhopal Municipality, AIR 1959 MP 253 and Nathuram v. State government of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1962 MP 367. In the course of arguments, our attention was also drawn to two other Single Bench decisions of this Court, seth Badriial v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Revn. No. 450 of 1960 D/- 12-91961 (MP) and Ghasiram v. State of Bombay Civil Revn. No. 239 of 1962 D/- 3110-1962 (MP ).

( 6 ) IT is plain from the language of the enactment itself that, in suits governed by the various clauses of Sub-section (iv) of Section 7, liberty has been given to tne plaintiff to value the relief claimed by him for purposes of court-fee. In Sathappa chettiar v. Ramnathan Chettiar, 1958 SCR 1021: (AIR 1958 SC 245) the Supreme court authoritatively clarified the position and observed: "if the scheme laid down for the computation of fees p