https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313155 Declaratory reliefs that a plaintiff was president of the institution and that certain resolutions were void were treated as the principal reliefs, and the injunctions restraining defendants from acting on those resolutions, functioning as president, or interfering with the plaintiff flowed consequentially from those declarations. The plaint was therefore treated as one composite claim for declaration with consequential injunctions, so the plaintiff's split valuation could not control the court-fee. The proviso relating to immovable property did not apply because the suit did not directly and expressly seek relief with reference to immovable property, and the court-fee valuation had to match the jurisdictional valuation. en-us Tue, 31 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:09:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313155 Declaratory reliefs that a plaintiff was president of the institution and that certain resolutions were void were treated as the principal reliefs, and the injunctions restraining defendants from acting on those resolutions, functioning as president, or interfering with the plaintiff flowed consequentially from those declarations. The plaint was therefore treated as one composite claim for declaration with consequential injunctions, so the plaintiff's split valuation could not control the court-fee. The proviso relating to immovable property did not apply because the suit did not directly and expressly seek relief with reference to immovable property, and the court-fee valuation had to match the jurisdictional valuation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313155