( 1 ) SMT. Comolata Dutta widow of late Waller Dutta filed a suit claiming a declaration that the sale of the suit property in execution of the decree passed in civil Suit No. 11-A of 1947 of the Court of the first Additional District Judge, jabalpur, in favour of the Ishwari Industries Limited (defendant No. 1) or in favour of Rajendranath Bhaskar (defendant No-4) did not confer on the purchaser any right, title or interest in the suit property and as such, the purchaser was not entitled to lake possession of the same in pursuance to the sale. The second relief sought in the plaint was for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 4 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. She valued the claim for the declarator relief at Rs. 20,000/- and paid court-fee of Rs. 20/ -. She further valued the relief of injunction at Rs. 200/- and paid for this a court-fee of rs. 20/ -.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 4 in his written statement contended that the plaintiff's suit in substance was one for setting aside the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1947 and, therefore, the plaintiff had to pay ad valorem court-fee on the aggregate amount of Rs. 20,200/ -.

( 3 ) THE trial Court framed issue No. 37 (a) and (b) covering the question of court-fees which was payable and by the findings recorded by it on 29-2-1960, it held that the plaintiff was liable to pay court-fee on at least Rs. 20,000. It held that after allowing deduction of the court-fee already paid, the plaintiff had to pay further court-fee of Rs. 1285/10/ -. The plaintiff failed to pay the court-fee within lime which was allowed by the Court and, there-fore, it rejected the plaint under order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25-3-1960. The plaintiff (appellant) feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection of the plaint has filed this appeal.

( 4 ) THE contention advanced by Shri Y. P. Verma on behalf of the appellant is that as the plaintiff had stated in the plaint that she was in possession of the suit property she was entitled to claim the relief of declaration simpliciter and was only liable to pay fixed court-fee of Rs. 20/- on the declaratory relief. He has further urged that the relief of perpetual injunction sought in the plaint was an independent relief which could not be said to be consequential to the relief of declaration and the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to value the relief of injunction at her own choice. He urged that the suit, as framed, did not fall within the purview of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and, therefore, the lower Court must be held to have crept into an error in holding that the plaintiff was liable to pay the balance court-fee of Rs. 1285/10/- and further in rejecting the plaint because this court-fee was not paid. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the controversy between the parties it would be necessary to stale a few facts. The deceased Shri Waller Dutta was admittedly a party to the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1947. He was the Managing Director of the Metalon paints Limited Niwar, Katni, (defendant No. 2 ). In his capacity of being the managing Director, he had executed it mortgage of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3. The suit property included lease hold rights in certain lands, bungalows, factory, buildings, two wells and a garden details whereof are given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. Shri Walter Dutta had further personally guaranteed the payment of the mortgage amount to the third defendant. In the suit, preliminary decree was passed on 5-10-1948 for sale of the mortgage property and final decree was later on passed on 8-10-1949. It may further be noted that the plaintiff is claiming as the successor in title of the late Waller Dutta and in no other capacity.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, in suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed, court-fee is required to be paid according to the