1. The relief asked for in this case was a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of certain property and an injunction restraining the defendant, who claims the property, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. This is clearly a claim for declaration with consequential relief. The right to obtain an injunction against the defendant flows from the declaration which the plaintiff seeks of his right to the property. If the plaintiff has that right ha is entitled to an injunction in consequence. If he has not that right ha is not entitled to an injunction. The Taxing Officer in fact felt no doubt on this point the only reason that ha has made this reference is that ha was doubtful of his power under Section 12(ii) of the Court Peas Act to decide that the plaint had been understampad in the Court below to the detriment of the revenue. Having regard to Section 5 of the Act I have no doubt that this power is vested in him. By that section the power of the Court to decide disputed questions of Court-fee is vested in the Taxing Officer subject to his power to refer the mattar to the Taxing Judge when a question of general importance arises. This authority extends to all such questions arising in the High Court, whether the deficiency alleged is on the memorandum of appeal in this Court or on a plaint or memorandum of appeal filed in the Court below. This is my answer to the reference. The appellant is allowed up to November 4th to make good the deficiency in Court-fee.