The valuation of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, where the relief of declaration is mere surplusage, is governed by Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act, and the plaintiffs are bound to value the relief of injunction at the market value of the superstructure and pay court fees thereon.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This revision is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the order dated 1.11.95, whereby the trial Court has directed the applicants to pay Court-fee on the amount of Rs, 1, 50, 101/- in civil Suit No. 298-A of 1995.

2. The applicants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the non-applicant. Their claim was based on the fact that the applicant had constructed a building on the plot situate at Baijnathpara Ward, Raipur. The construction was made after obtaining permission of the non-applicant, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. It was claimed that there was some compromise dated 23.9.95, according to which, the applicants constructed a building for the purpose of residence as well as for a showroom. It was claimed that since the map was properly sanctioned, and the unauthorised construction was also permitted under Section 307 (4) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, it cannot be said that the applicants had construced the building illegally. It was further claimed that the Municipal Corporation had no right and authority to proceed under Section 307 (2) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act against the applicants. The applicants further alleged that despite the explanation given by them to the notice dated 20th of October, 1995, on 24th of October, 1995, the non applicant threatened to demolish the structure raised by the applicants. The applicants, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the non-applicant from interfering with the possession of the suit property.

3. The applicants paid the court-fees under Article 17 (iiii) of the Schedule II of the Court fees Act, of Rs. 30/- for the relief of declaration. They valued the relief of injunction at Rs. 300/- under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court fees Act and paid Rs. 30/- on the valuation. However, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the applicants claimed that the property was worth Rs. 1, 50, 101/-, therefore, the suit was filed in the Court of VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur.

4. By the impugned order, the trial Court has held that the applicants have not valued the suit property properly and, therefore, they should revise the valuation and pay the court-fee in accordance with law.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the suit was rightly valued and, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, this was a suit for declaration and injunction covered by Clause 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and, therefore, the valuation on the relief of injunction put by the applicants at Rs. 300/- was correct. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the relief of injunction was consequential to the relief of declaration and, therefore, the valuation made by the applicants was covered by Clause 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. In the alternative, it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the valuation put by the applicants is proper because a fixed Court fees of Rs. 30/- was required to be paid on a relief of declaration under Article 7 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and the relief of injunction was valued at Rs. 300/-by the applicants in accordance with law. There was further submission that in this case there was no relief of declaration involved as the suit is filed merely for permanent injunction.

6. The learned counsel for the applicants relied on the case of Mahant Purshottam Dass and others Vs. Har Narain and others (1) and submitted that the applicants could pray for injunction without necessity of praying for declaration. In this case the prayer for declaration was mere surplusage. The plaintiff could get the relief of injunction as there was no obstacle to the title of the applicants. Therefore, the suit is covered by Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act. The learned counsel for the applicants also referred to a decision in parties being Sa