A. Banerji, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 20-8-1977, passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur, deciding issue No. 4. The issue was, 'whether the suit is undervalued and the court-fee paid is insufficient." The learned District Judge held that the court-fees paid by the plaintiffs was sufficient and the suit has been rightly valued.
(2.) The plaintiffs had filed a suit for two reliefs, namely, for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the entire property detailed in the plaint and secondly, for permanent injunction against the Administrator General, defendant No. 1 restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the property in suit or withdrawing money in Central Bank of India, Mirzapur and Post Office and elsewhere or in the firm standing in the name or Khata of Sri Bhairo Prasad deceased. The learned District Judge held that the court-fees of Rs. 200/- paid for the aforesaid first relief and Rs. 500/- paid for the second relief was more than that was due under the U.P. Court-fees Act. He held that the relief of injunction flowed directly from the right which the plaintiffs have desired to be declared and amounted to a consequential relief. The suit was, therefore, held to be covered by the provisions of S. 7(iv)(a) of the Court-fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned District Judge, however, applied the provisions of S. 7(iv-B) of the Act to hold that Rs. 500/- would be the maximum amount of court-fees leviable for the relief of injunction, and in regard to the relief for declaratory decree the learned District Judge applied the provisions of item No. 17(iii)(d) of Sch. II of the Act and held that the proper fees would be Rs. 200/-.
(3.) This appeal came up before us on the 12th Sept. 1984 and after hearing learned Chief Standing Counsel and the counsel for the defendant respondents, we proceeded to dictate an order and completed it, but before signing the same certain doubts arose and we directed that the matter be listed for further hearing. The case was thereafter listed before us on 28th Sept. 1984 when we heard the counsel once again. We now proceed to give our reasons.;