Court fee for declaratory suits with consequential possession and injunction relief follows plaint-based valuation under the Court Fee Act.

Court fee liability is determined from the plaint allegations and reliefs, not from the defence. Where a plaint challenges a Will and a Trust and seeks deemed joint possession and injunction as consequential reliefs, the claim is treated as a suit for declaration with consequential relief rather than as separate independent claims. In that setting, the suit falls within Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, and valuation follows the property-based rule under Section 7(v). The direction to make up the deficiency in court fee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit, framed as one for declaration with deemed joint possession and injunction, attracted court fee as a suit for declaration with consequential relief under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, with valuation governed by Section 7(v).

Analysis: The nature of the suit and the court fee payable are to be determined from the allegations and reliefs in the plaint, and not from the defence in the written statement. On the plaint as framed, the claim for deemed joint possession and injunction flowed directly from the prayer challenging the Will and the Trust. Those reliefs were not independent or ancillary in the legal sense, but consequential to the declaratory relief. A suit seeking to avoid an instrument and to obtain possession-related and injunctive relief in the same chain of reliefs falls within the provision dealing with declaration coupled with consequential relief, and the valuation must follow the statutory rule applicable to such property-based claims.

Conclusion: The suit was rightly treated as one attracting court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, with valuation under Section 7(v) of the Court Fee Act, and the direction to make up the deficiency in court fee was upheld.

---