9911796707
TMI Blog1948 (8) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) Defendants be restrained from altering or adding to the name of the institution. (d) Defendant 2 be restrained from functioning as the President. (e) Defendants be restrained from interfering in plaintiff's functioning as the President. The plaintiff valued relief (a) at Rs. 600, relief (b)at RS. 3000, relief (c) at Rs. 500, relief (d) at RS. 500 and relief (e) at Rs. 500. He paid fixed court-fees on the first two reliefs on the ground that these reliefs were purely declaratory reliefs where no consequential relief was sought, and, as such, fell under Article 17 (vi), Second Schedule of the Court-fees Act. He paid court-fee on reliefs (c), (d) and (e)at one tenth of their valuation on the ground that these were independent reliefs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se may be.... 7. It is contended that the reliefs for injunction were separate and independent reliefs and were not consequential to the declaratory reliefs (a) and (b). A consequential relief means a relief which necessarily flows from the principal relief sought. It is a relief which in the circumstances of the lease cannot be allowed if the principal relief is refused--(see Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal AIR1932All485 and Ram Chhabila v. Sat Narain 1935 A.L.J.R. 1319. 8. The principal reliefs sought for in this case are two declarations that the plaintiff is the President of the institution, and that certain resolutions passed by the defendants party were void and ultra vires. The injunctions sought are merely further reliefs intended to prevent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the consequential relief. This view was taken in the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps v. Kedarnath AIR1944All113 by a learned single Judge of this Court, and we approve of the same. 10. It is then argued that the case falls under Proviso 1 to Section 7 (iv) (a). The suit relates to a school. It is alleged that the school owns immovable properties. When the plaintiff claims the relief that he may be declared to be the President of the Tej Rarn George Coronation Hindu High School , he is, in substance, so run the argument, claiming a relief for the management of the immovable properties owned by the school. We see no force in this contention. The suit does not expressly or directly relate to any of the properties owned by the school. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e different places. The true valuation, therefore, of what relief is claimed in the plaint would be the total amount of the five different reliefs put down in the plaint by the plaintiff. We think that the lower Court was right in holding that the plaintiff should pay court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 5100. The question may be looked at from another aspect. Sections, Suits Valuation Act, as amended for these Provinces, relates to suits other than those referred to in Section 4. Where in suits, other than those referred to in Section 4, court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. Section 1, Suits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
