Court-fee valuation for declaratory and injunctive suits over shares need not follow land-based valuation rules.

Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act generally allows valuation of a suit for declaratory relief with consequential injunction according to the plaintiff's valuation, and the second proviso must be strictly construed as an exception. Its reference to valuation under Section 7(v) applies only where that method is available, namely suits concerning land, houses and gardens; it does not extend to suits relating to shares or other movable property. The distinction between immovable property suits and other property suits was treated as a permissible legislative classification in a taxing statute and not violative of Article 15. The plaintiffs' valuation for declaration and injunction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second proviso to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, as extended to Delhi, required a suit for declaration and injunction relating to shares to be valued on the basis of the value of the shares, and whether that construction rendered the provision unconstitutional under Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 7(iv)(c) generally permits valuation of a suit for declaratory relief with consequential relief according to the plaintiff's valuation. The second proviso is an exception and must be construed strictly. Its reference to valuation being made in the manner provided by Section 7(v) can operate only where that method is applicable, namely in suits concerning land, houses and gardens. A suit concerning shares and other movable property cannot be valued in the manner contemplated by Section 7(v), so the proviso does not apply to such a suit. The classification between suits relating to land, houses and gardens and suits relating to other property was held to be a permissible legislative classification in a taxing statute and not hit by Article 15.

Conclusion: The proviso did not require the plaint to be revalued on the basis of the shares, and the valuation placed by the plaintiffs for the declaratory and injunctive reliefs was upheld.

---