1. This is a question as to the amount of court fee which the plaintiff appellant in bound to pay both upon the memorandum of appeal in this Court and on her plaint in the court below, The plaintiff is the subsequent mortgagee of certain property, A final decree for sale was obtained by a prior mortgagee of certain property including that which had been mortgaged to the plaintiff. To that suit the plaintiff was not a party. She has now brought a suit against the prior mortgagee and has asked for .the following two reliefs; first, that it may be declared by the court that the defendant No. 1 has no right to bring to sale the property mortgaged to the plaintiff, detailed in the plaint, in execution of a final decree obtained on the 3rd of August, 1912, and that the said decree hi not binding upon the plaintiff; secondly, that an injunction may be issued to the defendant No. 1 prohibiting him from taking out execution of the final decree against the property mentioned in the plaint. The first relief was valued by the plaintiff in her plaint at Rs. 6,818-12, the amount of the decree sought to be set aside. The second relief was valued at Rs. 100. On the first relief the plaintiff paid a court fee of only-Rs. 10, which is the court fee payable on a relief asking for a simple declaration. On the second relief she paid a court fee of Rs. 7-8. According to the report of the stamp officer an ad valorem court fee was payable by the plaintiff both in the court below and in this Court on the total sum of Rs. 6,918-12, the value placed upon the reliefs by the plaintiff herself. It seems to me that there is no doubt whatsoever in this matter in view of the clear language of Section 7, Clause iv, of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff's suit is really one to obtain a declaratory decree, where consequential relief is prayed. According to the terms of the section she must pay an ad valorem court fee according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. The section says: 'In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.' In the present case the plaintiff has clearly valued the two reliefs at Rs. 6,918-12, and an ad valorem court fee is payable on that amount both for the court below and in this Court.
2. The question as to whether or not the plaintiff can pub an arbitrary and fictitious valuation on the relief which he seeks, does not in my opinion arise in the present case at all, and it is really unnecessary to express an opinion on it. All I can say is that I have considerable doubt as to whether he is entitled to put on it a fictitious value and not the correct and proper value which is known to him.
3. The plaintiff will have to pay court fees for the court below and for this Court in accordance with the calculation in the stamp officer's report.
Henry Richards, C.J.
4. I concur. It is quite clear that under the provisions of Section 7, Clause iv, the plaintiff has to pay an ad valorem court fee according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued. In the present case the relief sought is valued at Rs. 6,918-12. Mr. Piari Lal Banerji in the course of his argument seemed to suggest that it was an oversight on the part of the plaintiff in valuing the relief at the amounts she did, and that it would have been quite open to her to have valued it at a much smaller sum. He accrued to me almost to suggest that we might treat the plaint as if a nominal valuation had been the value stated instead of Rs. 6,000 odd. I cannot at all agree to any such contention. Section 7 says that the ad valorem court lee shall be paid 'according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.' It seems to me that the proper moaning to be attached to the latter words is that the plaintiff shall truly state the amount at which he values the relief sought, and that it cannot mean that a plaintiff is entitled to put in a fictitious value when the relief is capable of valuation. That this is not a mere matter of form becomes apparent when one considers that the valuation affects the jurisdiction and decides the court by which the case is to be tried. Obviously a defendant has a right that a case of great importance in which a large amount is involved should go before the tribunal in the first instance to which such cases ought ordinarily to go and not to any inferior court. I agree in the order proposed by my learned colleague.
By the Court-
5. We allow the plaintiff appellant two months to make good the deficiency for the court below and for this Court, namely, Rs. 675.