- (1.) THIS is a reference under Section 6-C (l), Court Fees Act by the Chief Controlling Revenue authority in Suit No. 114 of 1951, 'thakur Shri Krishna Chandraji v. Shyam Behari Lal', in the court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur.
(2.) THAKUR Shri Krishna Chandraji and Bankey Behari Lal filed this suit against Shyam Behari lal claiming several reliefs, the first two of which are: " (a) that it be declared that the plaintiff No. 2 is the sarbarakar of the plaintiff No. 1, (b) that the defendant be removed from the management of the temple of plaintiff No. 1 and the charge of the temple and movable therein be handed over to plaintiff No. 2 as sarbarakar on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1. " Court fee on relief, (a) was paid according to Schedule II, Article 17, clause (iii) and on relief (b) according to clause (vi) of the same Article of the Court Fees Act.
(3.) THE Inspector of Stamps reported to the Court concerned that the Court fee paid was insufficient and it ought to have been paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (a), court Fees Act on the market-value of the property as the reliefs in the suit were for declaration that plain-tiff No. 2 was the sarbarkar of plaintiff No. 1 and that the defendant be removed from the management of the property of plaintiff No. 1. The Inspector of Stamps expressed the opinion that the reliefs involved a, declaration of title and consequential relief. The learned First civil Judge did not agree with the report of the Inspector of Stamps and held that the Court fee paid was sufficient. It is subsequent to this order that this reference was made to this Court without taking recourse to the provision of Section 6-B, Court Fees Act which empowers the chief Inspector of Stamps to apply in revision against the order passed by a Court on the report of the Inspector of Stamps. The point in this reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue authority is whether it is a case of declaratory decree with consequential relief in terms of section 7 (iv) (a) and the plaint required an ad valorem Court fee of Rs. 2,284/14/-on the jurisdictional value of the property involved.;