Sultan Singh, J.
(1) The petitioners plaintiffs by this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenge the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi dated 28th November, 1981 directing them to pay court fees on the amount of Rs. 23,668.00 .
(2) Briefiv the facts are that Smt Bimla Ruli alias Kishna Kumari had deposited Certain amount in S.B. Account No 373/265 and Recurring Time Deposit Account No. 51/7230 in the Port Office at Najafgarh. She died on 22nd October, 1977. Gobind Gopal plaintiff No. I is her husband while the plaiiniffs No. 2 to 7 arc her sons and daughters. At the time of opening the said two acconiiti, it appears, Banwari Lal defendant was shown as her nominee in the said accounts. The plaintiffj on 20th November, 1978 filed the pi'ei-ent suit for declaration that the nomination in favor of the defendant was illegal, that they alone being the legal heirs and representa- tives were entitled to receive the amount lying to the credit of the deceased Smt. Bimla Rani. The plain(iff(r) further prayed for a perpetual injunclion restraining the defendant from receiving or realizing the amount lying in the said two accounts. According to the plaintiffs the total amount lying in the accounts is Rs. 23,668/. The trial Court held that the suit was for a declaration with consequential relief within the meaning of section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (herein- after referred to as 'the Act') and s the amount lying to the credit of the deceased was Rs. 23,668.00 the plaintiffs were liable to pay court fees on that amount.
(3) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the present suit is for declaration that they being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased were entitled to receive the amount in question. He submits that the nomination in favor of the defendant was null and void and the plain- tiffs claim declaration to that effect and as consequential relief the plaintiffs would be entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from receiving the amount lying in the accounts. He says that the plaintiffs have a right to fix their own value on the relief for purposes of court fees and the Court can- not compel them to adopt for such purchases the value stated by them in the plaint for purposes ofjurisdiction. The plaintiffs have fixed Rs. 200.00 as the value of the suit for purposes of court fees for the relief of declaration and Rs. 130.00 asihevalue for purposes of court fees for the relief of injunction and have paid court fees Rs. 33.00 . The learned counsel for the defendant however, submits that the plaintiffs claim relief to the extent of Rs. 23,668.00 being the amount lying in the accounts. He submits that when the jurisdic- tional value has been fixed at Rs. 23.668/', the plaintiffs are bound to fix the same as the value for purposes of court fee under the proviso to section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act reads as under : 197 'The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- (i) ............ (ii) ............ (iii) ............ (iv) In suits :- (a) ............ (b) ............ (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where coniequential relief is prayed, (d) ............ (e) ............ (f) ............ In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought: Provided that the minimum Court-fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees. Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section. (v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens-according to the value of the subject-matter ; and such value shall be deemed to be where the subject matter is land, and :- (a) where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of a estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled-ten times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying anunal revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as afore- said ) and such revenue is settled, but not permanently ent times the revenue so payable ) 198 (c) where the land pays no such revenue or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint :- fifteen times such net profits ; but where no such net profits have arisen thereforee, the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighborhood:- (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned-the market value of the land : Provirded that, in the territories subject to the State Government of Bombay the value of the land shall be deemed to be :- (1) where the land is held on settlement for a. period not exceeding thirty years and pays the full assessment to Government-a sum equal to (Ten) time the survery assessment ; (2) where the land is held on a permanint settlement, or on a settlement for any period exceeding thirty years, and pays the full assessment to Government-a sum equal to (twenty) limes. the survery assessment ; and (3) where the whole or any part of the annual survey-assessment is remitted-a sum computed under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of this proviso, as the case may be in addittion to (twenty) times the assessment, or the portion of assessment, so remitted; Explanationn-The word, 'estate' as used in this paragraph, means any land subject to the payment of revenue; for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government or which in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue , (e) where the subject-matter is a house or garden- according io the market value of the house or garden; (vi) (vii) (viii) ............ (ix) ............ (x) ............ (xi) ............
(4) Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 reads as under :
'WHEREin suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act 1870, section 7, paragraphs v, vi and ix, and paragraph x) clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fee, Ac(, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.'
(5) The plaintiffs claim a declaration that they being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the amount lying to the credit of the deceased in the said two accounts. As soon as the plaintiffs are held entitled to the declaration, the consequential relief would be to restrain the defendant from Realizing the amount. Thus the present suit is a suit for declaration with consequential relief under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The dispute however arises about the application of second proviso to section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. According to this proviso the value of the property involved in suits under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act is to be calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of section 7 of the Act. Section 7(v) provides for determination of the value with respect to certain properties. Thoes properties are lands, houses and garden. In the instant case the property in dispute is the amount lying in the Post Office. This property is not one of the properties referred to in section 7(v) of the Act. Thus the methed of calculation of the value of the property as mentioned in section 7(v) of the Act would not be applicable to determine the value of properly in dispute in the pregent case. Nothing has been provided in section 7(v) of the Act to determine the value of the property of the nature as in the present case. It must thereforee, be held that the plaintiffs have a discretion to put their own valuation on the relief for purposes of court fees. Thus under section 7(v)(c) of the Act the value of the suit for purposes of court fees would be Rs. 330.00 . Under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction would be the same as has been determined for purposes of court fees. The plaintiffs have fixed the value of the uit for purposes of court fees at Rs. 330.00 . They are thereforee, bound to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction also at Rs, 330.00 . As already held section 7(iv)(c) of the Act is applicable and thereforee, the plaintiffs have a choice to put their own value which thay have fixed at Rs. 330.00 .
(6) In Bawa Bir Singh v. Ah Niwaz Khan Air 1964 Punjab 381 after referring to section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and the second proviso, it has been held that in a suit falling under section 7(iv)(c) if one value is given for purposes of court-fee and another different value for purposes of jurisdiction, then it is the value for purposes of court-fee which has also to be taken for purposes or jurisdiction and different value mentioned for purposes ofjurisdiction has to be ignored. Further it has been observed that the second proviso to section 7(iv)(c) of the Act applies only to suits relating to property of which method of calculation of value is given in clause (v) and not to other suits. In that case a suit for declaration was filed to the effect that the amount lying to the credit in an account exclusively belonged to the plaintiff and he was entitled to receive the amount and that the defendant was not entitled to receive the same. It was held that the suit was covered by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and that the court fee was payble according to the value fixed by the plaintiff for purposes of court fees. In M/s. Ranchhodas Shamji Khirani and another v. Mrs. Balwant Kaur Malik : AIR1971Delhi249 the Division Bench of this Court has held that in suits covered by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which arc with reference to any property, the proviso will apply only if the valuation of the suit con be made in the manner provided for by clause (v) of section 7 of the Act. In Mahant Purushottam Dass and others v. Har Narain and others, : 113ITR389(Delhi) the Full Bench of this Court has observed that the second proviso to section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act will apply to such suits which are with reference to any property if the valuation of the suit can be calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of section 7 of the Act. The order of the trial Court demanding court fees at Rs. 23,668.00 is thereforee, without Jurisdiction and is set aside. It is held that the value of the suit for purposes of court fees is Rs. 330.00 on which proper court fees Rs. 33.00 has been paid. Consequently the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction will be Rs. 330.00 and not at Rs. 23,668.00 which has to be ignored. Parties are left to bear their own costs I he parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22nd November, 1932