CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS Vs. SEWA SUNDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, United Provinces under Section 6B, Court-fees Act against the order of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur in a court-fees matter.

(2.) The facts of this case are these. A suit was brought by the plaintiff opposite- party with the following prayers: (a) That the order, dated 18 January 1946, a certified copy of which is attached herewith, requiring the plaintiff to vacate rooms Nos. 7 and 8 passed by the T.R.O. be declared ultra vires, null and void. (b) That the defendant be restrained by perpetual injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the entire portion of the shop including rooms Nos. 7 and 8 in pursuance of the orders above noted, so long as the tenancy continues and is not legally determined. The suit was valued at Rs. 6720 which was said to be the market-value of the portions occupied by rooms Nos. 7 and 8 and at Rs. 200 for the purposes of declaration. Court-fee was paid on one-tenth of Rs. 6720 so far as the prayer for injunction was concerned and a fixed court-fee was paid on the prayer for declaration.

(3.) An objection was raised by the Inspector of Stamps to the effect that the court-fee in this case should be paid under Section 7 (iv) (a), Court-fees Act and, as such, it should have been paid on the entire amount, namely, Rs. 6720 and not on one-tenth of that amount. The Court below accepted the contention of the Inspector of Stamps that the suit was covered by Section 7 (iv) (a), Court-fees Act, as it was a suit for declaram. with a consequential relief in the shape of an injunction. It was further held that as the consequential relief in this suit was for injunction the suit should be properly valued according to Section 7 (iv-B) of the Act. The Court below therefore valued the property as required by the proviso to Section 7 (iv-B) at Rs. 28,800 and then ordered the opposite-party to pay court- fee on one-tenth of that amount. The present revision has been filed against this order of the Court below.