Court-fee valuation in declaration-cum-injunction suits requires matching jurisdiction value and proper ad valorem payment.

A suit framed as one for declaration and injunction was held to require examination of both court-fee and jurisdiction valuation under the Court Fees Act and the Suits Valuation Act, with the plaintiff's chosen valuation needing a proper ad valorem fee where the relief was not a bare declaration. The declared valuation was accepted as reasonably related to the property value, but the fee paid on that valuation was found deficient. Because the requisite fee was not affixed, interim protection could not continue. The party array was also narrowed, as defendant no. 10 had no agreement, no pleaded relief against him, and no privity with the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit, couched as one for declaration and injunction, had been properly valued for court-fee and jurisdiction and whether ad valorem court fee was payable; (ii) whether the interim injunction deserved recall and defendant no. 10 was liable to be struck off from the array of parties.

Issue (i): whether the suit, couched as one for declaration and injunction, had been properly valued for court-fee and jurisdiction and whether ad valorem court fee was payable

Analysis: The relief clause was not one of bare declaration, since injunction was also expressly sought and had in fact been obtained at the initial stage. On a conjoint reading of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction had to be the same where valuation was left to the plaintiff's determination. The court accepted that the declared valuation of Rs. 77 lakhs had a reasonable relation to the property value, but held that the proper court fee had not been paid on that valuation. Reference to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was found to be of no assistance to the controversy.

Conclusion: The suit was not to be treated as a mere declaratory suit, the valuation adopted for jurisdiction was accepted, and ad valorem court fee remained payable.

Issue (ii): whether the interim injunction deserved recall and defendant no. 10 was liable to be struck off from the array of parties

Analysis: Since the appropriate court fee had not been affixed, the interim protection could not be sustained. As regards defendant no. 10, no agreement to sell existed between him and the plaintiff, no relief was claimed against him, and there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The interim order was recalled and the application was dismissed, while defendant no. 10 was struck off from the array of parties.

Final Conclusion: The court fee objection was upheld, the interim restraint did not continue, and the proceedings were directed to proceed after removal of the fee deficiency and deletion of the unnecessary party.

---