Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit for a declaration that certain awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer were illegal, null and void and not binding on them. The plaintiffs felt that court -fee was payable u/Art. 17(iii) of the 2nd Sch. of the Court -fees Act, and as such, it was chargeable to the fixed fee of Rs. 200/ -. Accordingly they paid court -fee of Rs. 200/ -. The Inspector of Stamps reported that the plaint was deficiently stamped. According to him, the suit was for the setting aside of the awards, and was chargeable to court -fee u/S. 7(IV -B)(e) of the Act. The Court below accepted the report and directed the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come to this Court u/S. 6 -A of the Act. In the plaint, the proceedings for acquisition of the plaintiffs' properties were challenged on several grounds. It was prayed: - - (a). It be declared in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants that the awards Nos. 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276 all dated 30 -9 -1961, made by the Land Acquisition Officer in so far as they relate to the properties mentioned in Sch. 'A' annexed to and part of this plaint being absolutely illegal, null and void, is not in any way binding on the plaintiffs.
(2.) Ex -facie, this relief is merely for declaration that the awards are void and not binding. The court below, however, held that cl. (e) of S. 7(IV -B), Court Fees Act was attracted. S. 7(IV -B) provides: - - (IV -B). In suits (a) for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land; (b) to obtain an injunction; (c) to establish an adoption or to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is valid; (d) to set aside an adoption or to obtain a declaration that an alleged opinion is invalid, or never, in fact, took place; (e) to set aside an award not being an award mentioned in S. 8; according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint: Provided that such amount shall not be less than one -fifth of the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought or Rs. 200/ - whichever is greater. It is apparent that in Cls. (c) and (d), the Legislature included declarations about the validity as well as the invalidity of an adoption, but omitted to include a declaration regarding invalidity of an award in Cl. (e). Cl. (e) covers a relief to set aside an award. In the context of the other provisions of the Section, it could well be held that the omission was deliberate, and, that cl. (e) was not intended to cover a relief for declaration that an award was illegal.
(3.) In this Court, it is settled that for purposes of applying the provisions of the Court Fees Act, a Court is merely to look at the relief as framed. If the plaintiff prays for a declaration, the court cannot compel the plaintiff to super -add a prayer for consequential relief, even though u/S. 42, Specific Relief Act, the Court may refuse to grant a mere declaration on the finding that a consequential relief ought to have been prayed for - -Bisan Sarup v/s. Musa Mal ( : 1935 AWR 896 FB), Krishna Chard v/s. Mahabir Prasad (1933 (2) AWR 1317) and Smt. Bhagwan Dei v/s. Firm Het Ram Sureschandra ( : 1960 AWR 522).;