The valuation of the relief of declaration and permanent injunction for court-fee payment should be based on the value of the relief sought, as per S. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, and should not be influenced by the market value of the property.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order dated 15-3-2000 of the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 58-A of 1997 by which they have been directed to pay court-fee on the basis of the market value of the house in dispute for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the present purpose pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are owners of the house in dispute on plot No. 33, Jawaharganj Jabalpur; defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are their tenants in one shop, defendant No. 4 is tenant in another shop and the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 are their tenants in the third shop; the rent of the shop with the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 is Rs. 600/- per month; the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were recovering the rent of the two other shops and were remitting the same to the plaintiffs, these defendants have now started claiming that they are co-owners of this house. The present suit is for eviction of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 under S. 12 (1) (a) and (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs have also claimed the declaration that they are owners of this house and the defendants are their tenants. They have further claimed that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from recovering the rent from the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 and they should be directed to pay the rent to the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs have valued the relief of eviction of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 as per Section 7 (xi) (c) of the Court-fees Act on the basis of monthly rent of the shop in their occupation as tenant for 12 months. They have also valued the relief for recovery of rent of Rs. 79,200/- on ad valorem basis and paid court-fee accordingly. So far there is no dispute. It is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Prasad v. Atul Chander Mitra (1994) 4 SCC 349 : (1995 AIR SCW 118 ). The plaintiffs have valued the relief of declaration and permanent injunction at Rs. 600/- and paid court-fee of Rs. 60/- thereon and that is disputed by the defendants. According to the plaintiffs they have paid the court-fee on the relief of declaration as per Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act and valued the relief of injunction at Rs. 300/- and paid court-fee as per Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Act. On the other hand the argument of the defendants is that the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in this case has real money value and that value is the market value of the house and therefore the trial Court has rightly directed the plaintiffs to pay court-fee on the basis of the market value of the house as per S. 7 (iv) (c) of the Act.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the parties this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not correct and the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs is proper. As mentioned above the suit for eviction of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and for arrears of rent has been undisputably properly valued. So far as the valuation for declaration and permanent injunction is concerned the allegations in the plaint alone should be considered for computation of court-fee. It is well settled that the question of court-fee must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced by the pleas in the written statement or by final decision of the suit on merits. This principle was laid down long back by the Supreme Court in Sathappa v. Ramnathan, AIR 1958 SC 245. Now the allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the owners of the house and the defendants are their tenants; the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have now started claiming to be co-owners of the house and thus a cloud has been cast on the title of the plaintiffs and for removal of that cloud they are seeking the relief of declaration of title and also the consequential relief of permanent injunction as mentioned abo