Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) FACTS leading to this revision petition may shortly be stated as follows: On 2nd May 1961 a suit was brought by Bawa Bir Singh against Ali Niwaz Khan who had migrated to Pakistan praying for a declaration to the effect that a sum of Rs. 52,000/ - lying to the credit of the Defendant in the current account of the State Bank of India at Ferozepore exclusively belonged to the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive this amount from the State Bank, Ferozepore, and that the Defendant was not entitled to receive the same. The Plaintiff treated this suit as a purely declaratory one and in paragraph 9 of the plaint he mentioned that the court -fee payable was fixed, being Rs. 19.50 nP., and the value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 52,000/ -. The case proceeded ex parte but after the recording of the ex parte evidence the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate judge on 14th February 1962. Apart from other grounds, it is necessary to refer to ground No. 11 which is to the following effect: That on a declaratory suit court -fee payable is Rs. 19 -50 nP. under Schedule II, Article 17, Court -fees Act. According to the Court -fees Act, the value for jurisdiction is Rs. 195/ - and for this reason the appeal is cognisable by this Court and has been filed within limitation and this matter is purely legal. Mention in the plaint by the Plaintiff that value for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 52,000/ - is not admitted to be correct because the suit in question is one for a declaration plus consequential relief. In other words, in the appeal the Petitioner himself raised the point that the dispute originally brought was one for a declaration and consequential relief and, consequently, value for purposes of court -fee could be fixed by the Plaintiff at his own choice, and in a way he treated Rs. 195/ - as the value for purposes of court -fee, although in the plaint he had not given any value for purposes of Court -fee and value for purposes of jurisdiction was given as Rs. 52,000/ -. For administrative reason the appeal was transferred to the file of the District Judge and entrusted to the Second Additional Judge who held that proper value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 52,000/ - and consequently returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the Court of proper jurisdiction. Strangely enough, instead of presenting the appeal to the High Court, the Petitioner presented the appeal again to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge who, as was to be expected, in view of the finding of the Second Additional District Judge, returned the memorandum again. That memorandum has not been filed in this Court. On the other hand, the present revision has been filed challenging the finding of the Senior Subordinate Judge holding that it has no jurisdiction.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Plaintiff -Petitioner urges that the suit as framed was one for a declaration and consequential relief and therefore properly fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court -fees Act and was not a suit for a mere declaration falling under Article 17 of the Second Schedule to the Court -fees Act. In this respect he refers to two decisions of the Bombay High Court - - "Bhimsangji Chhatrasangji v. Dolatsangji Hamersangji : AIR 1925 Bom 282(1) and Hafizulla v. Wakf Committee, Kolaba : AIR 1946 Bom 167. In the first case a Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a suit in which the Plaintiff sought "a declaration that he was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak annuity of Rs. 500/. received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same" was a suit which fell under Section 7(iv)(c), and, as the value for purposes of court -fee was fixed at Rs. 500/ -, the jurisdictional value was also treated to be the same. In Hafizulla's case : AIR 1946 Bom 167, the head -note is as follows: In order that a suit should fall within Section 7(iv)(c) the consequential relief prayed for by the Plaintiff need not necessarily be a relief other than a, declaratory relief. Hence, a suit for a declaration that certain darga and other properties belonging to the darga are not wakf within the meaning of the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923 and hence are not liable to registration under the Bombay Amendment Act 18 (XVIII) of 1935, falls under Section 7, sub -clause (iv)(c) and not Schedule 2, Article 17 (iii) because the second declaration is not an independent declaration but merely one which is consequential upon the first. No ruling to the contrary was cited. From the above it appears that if in a suit main declaration is sought and another declaration, which springs from the main declaration, is also sought, the second declaration would amount to a consequential relief. The declaration sought in the present case is similar to the one claimed by the Plaintiff in : AIR 1925 Bom 282(1). Thus it is clear that the suit did, in fact, fall under Section 7(iv)(c) and was wrongly valued for purposes of court -fee under Article 17, Schedule 2, Court -fees Act.
(3.) IT is well settled' that if in a suit properly falling under Section 7 (iv)(c) one value, is given for purposes of court -fee and another different value for purposes of jurisdiction, then it is the value for, purposes of court -fee which has also to be taken for purposes of jurisdiction and different value mentioned, for purposes of jurisdiction has to be ignored. See Sukh Raj v. Kanhaya Lal 2 Pun Re 1915:, AIR 1914 Lah 503, and Bansilal v. Bhikubai, AIR 1948 Bom 8. In the present case, however, only one value is given, namely that for purposes of jurisdiction. No value is given for purposes of court -fee because the Plaintiff had treated the suit as one for a declaration for which only fixed court -fee was paid. In this respect, however, reference is made to a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court consisting of five Judges, Karam Ilahi v. Muhamad Bashir, AIR 1949 Lah 116 (FB). The relevant portion of the head -note is as follows: Even where the relief is originally stamped under Article 17 of Schedule II, Court -fees Act, without any value for purposes of court -fees having been stated under Section 7(iv)(c) of that Act, but the Court holds that the suit falls under the latter provision, the Court is bound to permit the Plaintiff to put for purposes of court -fees his own value on the relief and cannot compel him to adopt for such purposes the value stated by him in the plaint for purposes of jurisdiction. This fully covers the present case and thus having come to the conclusion that the plaint actually falls under Section 7(iv)(c), the Plaintiff cannot be compelled to adopt the jurisdictional value as the value for purposes of court -fee and he has to be given the option to fix his own value. This in a way he has already done because, as detailed above, in the memorandum of appeal he has indicated this value to be" Rs. 195/ - on which proper court -fee payable was Rs. 19.50 nP. which had already been paid by him.;