MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 115, C.P.C. by Kanhaiya Lal and another, plaintiffs, against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur, dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the order of the Munsiff, City, Kanpur, that the relief for permanent injunction amounts to a consequential relief and court-fee was payable on the market value of the bungalow in suit which had been allotted to Satya Narain Pandey, defendant, for occupation as tenant.
(2.) THE plaintiffs had prayed for the reliefs : firstly, that it be declared that the allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 1-3-1960, which was confirmed on 25-7-1960, was void in law; and secondly, that the defendant be restrained by means of a permanent injunction from taking possession of the accommodation in question as a tenant on the basis of the allotment order referred to above. The plaintiffs had, for purposes of jurisdiction, valued the suit at Rs. 600/-, the annual letting value of the bungalow, and for the first relief, paid the court-fee as for a declaratory decree, and for the second, as for a relief for injunction. The second relief was not treated as a consequential relief. On an objection raised by the defendant, the Munsif ordered that the second relief was a consequential relief and, consequently for both the reliefs court-fee was payable on the market value of the bungalow. The plaintiffs challenged this order in appeal and after the dismissal of the appeal, they have now moved this Court on the ground that the court-fee was payable on the annual letting value of the bungalow, and not its market value. It was conceded that the second relief for permanent injunction was, in the eye of law, a consequential relief, and consequently, the suit was rightly treated to be for declaration with a consequential relief. The plaintiffs applicants throughout placed reliance upon the case of the Chief Inspector of Stamps v. Sewa Sunder Lal AIR 1949 All 560 but the lower courts have distinguished this case on the ground that that was a suit by the tenant, and not by the landlord (owner).
(3.) COURT fee payable in a suit for declaration with a consequential relief is computed in the manner laid down in S. 7(iv); of the Court Fees Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act); in other words, the amount of court fee payable in such a suit shall be according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or meorandum of appeal. It is, however, provided in the first proviso to this Sub-Section that "where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, such amount shall be the value of the consequential relief and if such a relief is incapable of valuation, then the value of the immovable property computed in accordance with Sub-S. (v), (v-A) or (v-B) of S. 7, as the case may be. However, as laid down in the second proviso the valuation can never be less than Rs. 300/-. When clause (a) of S. 7 (iv) is read along with the first proviso, it shall be clear that in cases not covered by this proviso, it is open to the plaintiff to give his own, value of the consequential relief though not less than Rs. 300/-, but where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property and the relief is capable of valuation, court fee shall be payable on the value of the consequential relief subject to a minimum of Rs. 300/- and if the consequential relief is incapable of valuation, then the value of the immovable property shall be computed in accordance with Sub-S. (v), (v-A) or (v-B) of S. 7, as the case may be, again subject to a minimum of Rs. 300/-. ;