Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. The question raised in this case is whether proper court-fee has been paid on the plaint. One Venkataratnam died leaving the first defendant, his widow; the second defendant is said to have been adopted by him on the 6th May, 1928. On the 6th November, Venkataratnam made a will giving authority to the first defendant to make another adoption in the event of the second defendant dying. On the 21st November, he made another will bequeathing his share of the property to the first defendant, on the footing that he had become divided in status from his adopted son. Three reliefs are prayed for in the plaint(1) a declaration that the adoption made by Venkataratnam is invalid(2) that his will dated 6th November, 1928, is invalid and(3) that his will dated 21st November, 1928, is also invalid.
2. In regard to the first relief, the case directly falls within Section 17-A, the second defendant's adoption is invalid and the suit has been filed in the Sub-Court; the value of the property according to the plaintiff for purposes of jurisdiction being four lakhs of rupees, the Court-fee payable is Rs. 500. The lower Court's conclusion on the point, which is in accordance with the view taken in Kattiya Pillai v. Ramasawamia Pillai : AIR1929Mad396 is correct.
3. Next, if the plaintiff fails on the issue relating to the adoption, the suit fails as his counsel Mr. Viyanna suggests and nothing further remains to be done; but should he succeed on that issue, in other words, should the Court, agreeing with him, hold that the adoption is invalid, then the other two reliefs become material. In regard to each of these two remaining reliefs, the case is governed by Article 17-A(i) which refers to suits to obtain declaratory decrees where no consequential relief is prayed. In such a case, the plaint having been presented in the Sub-Court, the Court-fee payable is Rs. 500 if the value for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 10,000 or upwards. In regard to the second relief, the value of the property is the same as in regard to the first, i.e., four lakhs; in regard to the third, the property bequeathed to the first defendant being the half-share of Venkataratnam, the value of the subject-matter would be two lakhs. That being so, in regard to each of these two reliefs (the second and the third relief), the Court-fee payable would be Rs. 500. It is argued that to hold so, would amount to compelling the plaintiff to value the same property thrice, but I am afraid this cannot be helped. None of the reliefs claimed can be said to be superfluous or unnecessary and each is independent of the others. Nothing compels the plaintiff to claim the three reliefs, and they being distinct and independent the requisite Court-fee in regard to each of them must be paid.
4. The lower Court's view that in regard to these three reliefs Rs. 1,500 should in the aggregate be paid as Court-fee, is therefore correct. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Time for payment of the deficient Court-fee is four weeks from this date.