BHIMSANGJI CHHATRASANGJI Vs. DOLATSANGI HAMIRSANGJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued inter alia for a declaration that ho was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of 11s 500 received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same. The total claim was valued for Court-fees at Rs. 2143-5-8 and also for jurisdiction. The suit was tried by the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) On appeal to the District Judge, an issue was raised whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Class at Ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under rule 10 of Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) We think that that order was wrong It depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of Rs. 500. The District, Judge thought the claim was for payment of an annuity, and the value for the purposes of the Court-fee under Section 7 (ii) would then be ton times the amount claimed to he payable for one year. We do not think it can be said that the plaintiff was claiming payment of an annuity, the suit really comes within H. 7 (iv) (c) " to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed." All that the plaintiff, was seeking was a declaration that he was entitled to an annuity which was enjoyed by Bai Suraj, and having got that declaration, he would be entitled to go to the official whose duty it was to pay the annuity, and demand payment according to the decree of the Court. The Court fee stamp would be according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint, namely Rs. 500.