KARUPPAYEE AMMAL Vs. PERIASAMI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Objection was taken to the correctness of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff on his plaint. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17A (1) of Schedule 2 to the Court-fees Act, for the relief of declaration of title valuing the properties at Rs. 5200 and an ad valorem court- fee on Rs. 50-10-0 being half of ten times the kist for the relief of injunction. He therefore treated the relief of injunction as separate and distinct from the relief of declaration. It is said that the suit must have been valued as a suit falling under Section 7(iv)(c) read with the Madras proviso, that is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed

(2.) The question therefore is whether the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff can be treated as a consequential relief within the moaning of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. It is difficult to lay down a general rule to find out when a relief can be said to be consequential on another relief. But Venkatasubba Rao J. in Karuppanna Tevar v. Angammal, 51 M. L. J. 67 : (A.I.R. (13) 1926 Mad. 678) suggested a test which appears to us to be useful. The learned Judge said:

(3.) On the facts as alleged in the plaint which must be assumed to be correct for the purpose of determining the court-fee, it cannot be said that the relief of injunction is consequential on the relief of declaration because both the reliefs are not founded on the same set of facts. We therefore overrule the objection and hold that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct.