BADRILAL BHOLARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal comes before us on a reference made by Newaskar J. for considering a question relating to court-tee on which divergent views have been expressed in Single Bench decisions of this Court. We have also heard, along with this reference, Civil Revision No. 244 of 1963, in which a similar question has been raised. This order shall dispose of the revision.

(2.) IN Civil Suit No. 8 of 1955, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that certain orders passed by officers of the Forest Department, whereby they imposed on him a liability for Rs. 16,318-8-0 on account of price of trees said to have been illegally felled and by way of penalty, were illegal and against the terms of the forest contract. The plaintiff further claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the aforesaid amount. Since that suit was dismissed, he has filed this appeal. As in the Court of first instance, he has, in this appeal, valued the relief claimed at Rs. 1,600/-for purposes of court-fee and at Rs. 16,318-8-0 for purposes of jurisdiction.

(3.) IN Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1961, out of which the revision arises, the plaintiff states that he is, having regard to the terms and conditions of the lease granted to him, not liable to pay the enhanced royalty amounting to Rs. 61,173. 41 demanded from him. The relief which he claims is: "plaintiff prays for a perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining him from claiming the demand ot Rs. 61,173. 41 np. or any part of it, as it is illegal, and/or from recovering any sum which is not legally payable by plaintiff. " although he has valued the suit for purposes of court-tee as well as jurisdiction at rs. 61,173. 41 np. , he paid the fixed court-fee of Rs. 20/- because "this suit is for a mere declaration. "