LYNATTE CAROLINE MARIA MANS FORD Vs. GRANVILLE JACOBS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 6-A of the Court-fees Act against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Jhansi directing the plaintiff to pay ad value court-lees on the value of the property involved under Sec tion 7 (iv) (a.) of the Court-fees Act hold ing that the suit was one to obtain a declaratory decree with consequential relief.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in their plaint sought inter alia the following two relief's: (a) A decree may be passed for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to the extent of 2/9th as her share and plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to the extent of 1/3rd as her share and plaintiff No. 3 is entitled to her 1/3rd share in the property mentioned in Sche dules A and B which being the joint pro perty of the plaintiffs along with defend ant No. 1 and he has no right and title both to receive interest, dividends or to negotiate or transfer the properties men tioned in Schedules A and B annexed to the plaint alone and without the consent and permission of the plaintiff to the ex tent of their shares, (b) A decree may be passed for permanent injunction res training the defendant No. 1 both from receiving the interests, dividends or pro fits or from negotiating or transferring the properties mentioned in Schs. A and B annexed to the plaint alone to the ex tent of 7/9th share of the whole property without the consent and permission of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellants relying on a Divi sion Bench decision of this Court in the case of Murli Dhar v. Bansi Dhar. 1961 All LJ 763 = (AIR 1963 All 86) con tended that the view taken by the learn ed Judge of the court below was erroneous. There is no doubt in my mind if the tests as laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalu Ram v. Babu lal, 1932 All LJ 684 = (AIR 1932 All 485) (FB) as denned in Krishna Chandraji v. Shyam Behari, AIR 1955 All 177. were to apply, the contention, advanced would be tenable, but the recent Full Bench decision of this Court of seven Judges in the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps. Allahabad v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1970 All 488 by a majority, seems to have overthrown the validity of the tests culled out from Kalu Ram's case. It has been held by the majority that a relief for injunction, though provided for in Section 7 (IV-B) of the Court-fees Act can yet be a con sequential relief for the purposes of Sec tion 7 (iv) (a) of the Act and once the plaintiff seeks a declaration and an in junction, then if the relief for injunction flows from the relief of declaration, the court-fee payable would be in terms of Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Act. The test that the relief for injunction could be claimed independently of the relief of declaration, no longer holds good. Once the right for which a declaration is sought forms the basis for claiming the injunc tion, then the plaintiff will have to pay court-fees in accordance with S. 7 (iv) (a) of the Act. In the instant case it is obvious that the very declaration sought in relief (a) stands converted into the relief of injunction sought in relief (b). There does not appear to be any escape from the conclusion that the relief for injunction directly flows from the relief of declaration.