BABUAPPA Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. The only question for decision in this application for revision is if' the plaint is properly stamped. The plaintiff claimed two reliefs: (1) for possession of a field and (2) for an injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession of two fields, and has valued the claim for the-first relief for purposes of court-fees-under Section 7, Clause 5 by paying court-fees on five times the revenue payable in respect of the said field. The lower Court following the principle laid down in Rajagopala Naidu v. Vijayaraghavalu [1915] 38 Mad. 1184 held that the court-fee was correctly; paid.

(2.) IN support of the revision it is contended that since the grant of the relief for possession involves the setting aside of a decree under which the contending, defendant holds possession, the relief claimed should be for declaration that the decree is not binding on the plaintiff and therefore the court-fee should be paid upon Rs. 1,179-12-0 which is the amount of the decree which has to be rendered ineffectual by the declaration. Reliance is placed upon the case of TulaRam v. Dwarka Das A.I.R. 1928 All. 218 for the contention advanced. But that case clearly decides that if the plaintiff does not claim declaration in the plaint and sues for possession simpliciter he need pay court-fee only on the actual relief claimed. I think the lower Court has decided the point of court-fee correctly and I dismiss this application for revision.