The valuation of the suit for jurisdiction depends on the amount of the plaintiff's liability, and the necessity of ascertaining the assets realized or to be realized in execution of decrees of rival decree-holders before maintaining a suit for a declaration and injunction.

Subhedar, A J C—The facts leading to this appeal are shortly these. In civil Suit No. 156 of 1927 the plaintiff obtained against defendant 2 a simple money decree for Rs. 1,851 on 22nd April 1927 and in execution thereof attached certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor. It was alleged that with the intention of defeating the plaintiff's claim under the aforesaid decree defendant 2, acting in collusion with defendant 1 executed a bogus promissory note in his favour on the basis of which the latter, in civil Suit 117 of 1930, fraudulently obtained a decree against the former for Rs. 1,746-4-0 and in execution got the same property attached which was attached by the plaintiff and had applied for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C. The plaintiff therefore brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the promissory note executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 was bogus and fraudulent and that the decree obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2 in civil No. 117 of 1930 was void against him for the same reason. By way of consequential relief the plaintiff prayed that defendant 1 be permanently restrained by an injunction from executing his decree against any property belonging to defendant

2. The plaintiff paid a court-fee of Rs. 10 for the declaratory relief and having valued his consequential relief for injunction at. Rs. 5 paid a court-fee of Rs. 0-6-0 on it, thus bringing the total valuation for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 135. 2. Defendant 1 resisted the suit on various grounds one of which was that the suit in its present form was not maintainable. The trial Court upheld this plea and holding that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint dismissed the suit as premature. On appeal the lower appellate Court remanded the case for trial on merits as it came to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable. Against this remand order the present appeal has been filed by defendant 1. Two questions arise for determination in the present appeal: (1) relating to the court-fees and (2) as to the maintainability of the suit. I am quite clear that the claim has been much under-valued in the present case. On the plaintiff's own allegation in the plaint that defendant 1 had obtained a decree against defendant 2 for Rupees 1,746-4.0 he was bound to value his relief for injunction on this basis and not upon an arbitrary valuation of Rs. 5. The effect of the consequential relief claimed by the plaintiff would be to wipe off completely the liability of defendant 2 and his property for the satisfaction of the decree of Rs. 1,746.4-0 obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2. The real value of the relief then as stated by the plaintiff himself was Rs. 1,746-4-0 and he should not have been allowed to state a lower value for purposes of court-fee computation and of jurisdiction.

3. In Devidas v. Ramlal,1911 7 NLR 190 it was held by this Court that when a suit is brought by a minor for a declaration that a mortgage deed executed in his name by his guardian is not binding on him, and for the consequential reliefs of cancellation of the deed and of a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from enforcing the terms of the deed, the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction depends on the amount of the plaintiff's liability under the deed, as stated in the plaint, and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to state a lower and arbitrary value for purposes of jurisdiction. Even if the plaintiff in the present case had not specifically claimed the consequential relief for injunction still in effect his claim for a declaration that defendant 1's decree against defendant 2 was null and void virtually included a prayer to set aside that decree involving a consequential relief, and according to Baldeoprasad v. Ghasiram,1920 AIR(Nag) 243 court-fee ought to have been computed under Section 7, Clause 4(c), Court-fees Act. Ad valorem court-fees calculated on the amount of t