JUDGMENT Niamatullah, J. - This is an office report in respect of the court-fee paid by the Plaintiffs-Respondents on their plaint. The Plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs:- (a) It may be held that Defendants 1st party have no concern whatsoever and a decree may be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs declaring that the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2nd party have got exclusive right to sit at the Dadri Fair Ghats, to have 'Shankalp' done and to take 'dan dachhina' as their right of 'birt' in their capacity of being Ganga Patras and Pandas of Bhirug Kshetra and Dardar Kshetra. (b) A perpetual injunction may be issued to Defendants 1st party restraining them from sitting at the 'ghats' of Mela Dadri, having the 'shankalp' done and taking 'dan dachhina' and from interfering with the Plaintiffs' right of sitting, having the 'shankalp' done and taking 'dan dachhina1 and from committing assault and criminal offences against these Plaintiffs. (c) Rs. 150, on account of damages may be awarded to the Plaintiffs against Defendants 1st party. (d) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the Plaintiffs against Defendants 1st party. 2. They paid Rs. 10 on relief (a) and an ad valorem fee on relief (b) fixing its value to be Rs. 100. The stamp reporter points out that the Plaintiffs are in fact, claiming a declaratory relief where consequential relief is prayed. The learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs-Respondents contends that he is not claiming one relief of declaration coupled with a consequential relief, but two separate and distinct reliefs, namely, for a declaration and wholly apart from it for an injunction restraining the Defendants from sitting at the 'ghat' and interfering with the Plaintiffs' exclusive right of sitting at the same 'ghat'. Two reliefs cannot be regarded as separate and distinct only because the Plaintiff says so. The nature of the two reliefs will determine the question whether they are independent reliefs or whether one is consequential on the other. We are clearly of opinion that the relief of injunction, so far as it aims at restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs' right to sit at the 'ghat' in respect of which a declaration is sought, is a consequential relief. The relief of injunction, in the present case, flows directly from the right which the Plaintiffs desire to be declared. The relief of injunction, in the present case, flows directly from the right which the Plaintiffs desire to be declared. In this view reliefs (a) and (b) should be considered to be but one relief of the nature described in Section 7(4)(c), Court Fees Act, and the suit should be treated as one to obtain a declaratory decree where con-sequential relief is prayed. Court-fees in such a case are payable on the amount at which the Plaintiff, values the relief sought. It was open to the Plaintiffs to have valued reliefs (a) and (b) treated as one at Rs. 100, as they valued relief (b) only. In such a case the suit would have been cognizable by a Munsif. They have not however, separately valued the relief. (a) except so far that they give Rs. 5,000 as the value for the purposes of jurisdiction. Section 8, Suits valuation Act, (Act VII of 1887) provides that the value in such cases for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee shall be the same. The Plaintiffs have given the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. The same must be treated, in the circumstances of the case, as the value for the purposes of the court-fee. 3. The stamp reporter takes the value to be Rs. 5,250, which includes the value of reliefs (a)(b) and (c) taken singly. So far as relief (c) is concerned, which relates to mesne profits, the stamp reporter is right, but so far as he has taken reliefs (a) and (b) singly for computing the total amount of the value for the purposes of court-fee, his view proceeds on an error. Reliefs (a) and (b) being taken as but one relief, as we have already indicated, the value does not exceed Rs. 5,000, which is the value for the purposes of jurisdiction and which should be taken to be the same for the purposes of court-fee in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Accordingly we declare the Plaintiffs to be liable for court-fee calculated on Rs. 5,150 minus the court-fee already paid by them. The deficiency shall be made good in three months.