1. A question has been raised in this appeal as to the amount of Court-fee to be paid in respect of relief (a), claimed in paragraph 13 of the plaint. That relief is in the following terms: I may be declared as against the defendants that the plaintiff and her descendants generation after generation are entitled to receive from the defendants and their representatives Rs. 100 per mensem, which is a charge on the property mentioned in Schedule A.' There is a further prayer for the recovery of Rs. 1,800 as arrears. Court fees were paid as to the first relief of a sum of Rs. 10, it being contended on behalf of the plaintiff that she was liable under Clause 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act to the payment of a Court fee of Rs. 10 only. An objection was raised in the Court below as to the amount of Court-fee in respect of this part of the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff. The claim was, however, dismissed and an appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff to this Court.
2. The office submitted a report that the amount of Court fee, namely, Rs. 10, which the plaintiff has paid in regard to relief (a) in the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal was insufficient, and Mr. Ryves, on behalf of the Board of Revenue, supports the office report, and urges that the amount of Court-fee payable by the plaintiff is not the fixed sum of Rs. 10 for this part of the claim but ad valorem Court-fee as prescribed in Section 7, Clause (ii) of the Court Fees Act. If the suit had been a suit for a declaratory decree only, without a prayer for consequential relief, Article 17 might have applied; but in the present case the plaintiff claimed not only a declaration of her right to get a periodical payment of Rs. 100 a month, but also a sum of Rs. 1,800, so that there was a prayer for consequential relief in addition to a prayer for a declaratory decree. In this view Article 17 could not apply to the case. Section 7 of the Court Fees Act provides in clause (i) that in suits for money, including suits for damages, or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or other sums payable periodically, Court fee is to be paid according to the amount claimed. Then follows Clause (ii), which is in these terms: In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically, according to the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed as payable for one year.' In the present suit the plaintiff has in Clause (a) of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint asked for a declaration that she and her legal representatives are entitled generation after generation to receive from the defendant and from their property Rs. 100 a month. This is a claim for a sum, other than maintenance or annuity, which is payable periodically. In a case like this if clause (ii) is applicable, the Court-fee is to be paid on ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. In our opinion this is a case to which Clause (ii) of Section 7 fully applies. The claim is, as stated above, for a declaration of right to a periodical payment and, therefore, Court fee is to be paid on this part of the claim on ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. The sum of Rs. 100 a month is claimed as payable and, therefore, for one year the amount payable is Rs. 1,200; Court-fee is payable on ten times that amount, namely, Rs. 12,000.
3. We allow the appellant three months to make good the deficiency in Court-fee on the memorandum of appeal presented in this Court and on the plaint filed in the Court below.