P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) SHRIMATI Ram Kali Kali brought a suit for a declaration that the mortgage dead dated 16th of December, 1965, and the sale -deed dated 11th of May, 1966, executed by her mother Shrimati Ram Piari in favour of Mathra Dass, were without necessity and invalid in law and they were, consequently, not binding on her after the death of her mother. She also claimed a permanent injunction restraining Mathra Dass from alienating the property in dispute in any manner in future. In the alternative, a decree for possession of the property by pre -emption was also sought. The suit was contested by Mathra Dass, who also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the suit was not valued properly for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction. His objection was that the suit involved four reliefs on which separate court -fee should have been paid. A preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court -whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was seeking to invalidate two transactions and she was, therefore liable to pay separate court -fee on each such relief claimed by her. As regards the permanent injunction, his view was that it was not a separate relief. It flowed from the relief of declaration and was, therefore, consequential. No separate court -fee was required therefor. So far as the alternative relief for possession of the property by pre -emption was concerned, his finding was that it was a distinct claim and, should be assessed separately for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction.
(2.) AGAINST this decision, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant, Mathra Dass, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and his objection is that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that the relief regarding permanent injunction was a consequential one. According to Mathra Dass, this relief was also a distinct one and separate court -fee should have been paid by the plaintiff thereon. It may be stated that Shrimati Ram Piari, who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this Court, was not served. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was merely a proforma respondent and her name be struck off the record. I order accordingly.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Shrimati Ram Kali, that the order of the trial Judge regarding the court -fee matter was not revisable by this Court in a revision petition at the instance of the defendant Mathra Dass. In that connection, be relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rathna yarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1299.;