JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - This is an application for revision u/s 6-B of the Court Fees Act by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, United Provinces, from an order of the District Judge holding that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs- appellants in his Court was sufficient. 2. The short facts are that plaintiff No. 1, as a trustee of the Hathaura estate of which the plaintiff No. 2 is the owner, filed a suit (a) for recovery of Rs. 1,000 as damages and (b) for a perpetual injunction to the effect that the defendants or any other persons have no right whatsoever to interfere with exercise of zamindari rights of the plaintiffs in bazar Kachhauna. Plaintiff No. 2 was admittedly the owner of village Kachhauna where a bazar is held twice a week and the plaintiff realizes Tahbazari and weighment dues from the shop-keepers of the bazar. The defendants on the 20th November, 1938, had proclaimed by a beat of drum on the bazar day that no shop-keeper should pay the aforesaid dues to the plaintiffs. This proclamation had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from realising any dues and they suffered a loss of Rs. 1,000. The valuation of this claim was put down as Rs. 1,000-7.' The valuation of . the injunction was petition down as Rs. 1,100, total Rs. 2,100-7. There is no dispute about the relief for damages as adequate court-fee was paid on that relief, but on the relief of Rs. 1,100 the plaintiffs paid only Rs. 8-4 by calculating it at one' tenth of Rs. 1,100. This was presumably paid under the proviso to Section 7 (iv-B), which says that the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint shall be not less than one-tenth of the market-value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought or Rs. 50/whichever is greater.... 3. The suit was dismissed and in appeal the plaintiffs valued the property in respect of the relief for injunction at Rs. 110, namely one-tenth of Rs. 1,100. The Inspector of Stamps objected. He says that the profits for the year 1346 Fasli amounted to Rs. 489, and the value of the property must be calculated as Ks. 489 multiplied by 20, namely Rs. 9,780. He calculated the court-fee upon Rs. 110, namely one-tenth of Rs. 1,100. The Inspector of Stamps objected. He says that the profits for the year 1346 Fasli amounted to Rs. 489, and the value of the property must be calculated as Ks. 489 multiplied by 20, namely Rs. 9,780. He calculated the court-fee upon Rs. 978, which is one-tenth of the value of the property, and reported that the relief for injunction was chargeable with a court-fee of Rs. 100 against Rs. 8-4.!paid in that behalf on the plaint as well as on the memorandum of appeal. The deficiency claimed was Rs. 183-8 in both the Courts. 4. The learned District Judge did not agree. He held that the right to realise the Tahbazari dues had no direct concern with the land which is liable to pay land revenue and, therefore, no market-value of this right could be assessed. According to his vie w, the appellant was entitled to pay court-fee on Rs. 50 as representing the market value of that right. Dissatisfied with this decision the present application has been filed. 5. We are of opinion that the view of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. Section 7 (iv-B) (b) says that- in suits to obtain an injunction the amount of fee payable shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. 6. The proviso to this section which has been quoted above says that such amount shall be not less than one-tenth of the market of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. Explanation 1 lays down that when to relief sought is with reference to any immoveable property the market value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with Sub-section (v).... Sub-Section (v) says that "in suits for possession of land, buildings or gardens, the value of the subject-matter shall be deemed to be (c) where the land pays no such revenue...and net profits have arisen from the land during the three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint- twenty times the annual average of such profits. 7. These provisions leave no room for doubt that the relief to obtain an injunction has to be so valued that the amount shall be not less than one-tenth of the market- value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. 7. These provisions leave no room for doubt that the relief to obtain an injunction has to be so valued that the amount shall be not less than one-tenth of the market- value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. In the present case the plaintiffs based their claim to realise the Tahbazari dues in the bazar because of their proprietorship of the land on which the bazar is held. The relief for injunction involves or affects the property upon which the bazar is held and which yields an in- come to the plaintiffs in the shape of Tahbazari dues. In a fiscal enactment, like the Court Fees Act, the Court must confine its attention to the words of the Act. The Act nowhere says that the relief for injunction must have direct concern with the land liable to pay the land revenue. Any distinction between land or benefit to arise out of land is, therefore, beside the point. The plaintiffs' right to realise the Tahbazari dues has been successfully obstructed upon the allegations in the plaint by the defendants \ and it has become necessary for them to i seek a perpetual injunction against them from restraining them from interference with this right. It follows, therefore, that the property is involved in or affected by the relief of injunction. The reference to sub-clause (a) of clause (iv-B) which deals with a right to some benefit, like easement, is irrelevant. The Tahbazari right is a substantial right in land. Coming to Explanation 1, it is clear the market value of such property should be computed in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (v); and under this sub- section twenty times the annual average of the net profits for three years immediately I preceding the date of presenting the plaint j will constitute the market value of the I property. The Inspector of Stamps has referred to the profits of the property for one year only. This is wrong and the learned Government Advocate concedes this. We are informed that there is no evidence on the record to show the profits for three years and the matter has to be enquired into. 8. Reference has been made to Ram Jiwan v. Hanoman Pershad (1941) 16 Luc. This is wrong and the learned Government Advocate concedes this. We are informed that there is no evidence on the record to show the profits for three years and the matter has to be enquired into. 8. Reference has been made to Ram Jiwan v. Hanoman Pershad (1941) 16 Luc. 191: (1940) O A 746 : AWR (C C) 357; Sikandar v. Bahadur (1905) 27 All 462 and Gholam Mohiuddin Hossein v. Parbati (1909) 36 Cal 665 to show that Tahbazari dues have been regarded as substantial rights in land. They have been regarded as immoveable property for the purpose of lease, registration and mortgage. We do not think it necessary to go into this question to find out whether the Tahbazari dues are land or not, as the matter in our opinion must be determined upon the language of the proviso to which we have referred. 9. Accordingly we allow the application and remand the case to the learned District Judge to determine the amount of court-fee in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. He will give an opportunity to parties to adduce evidence to show the annual average of the net profits during the three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint. The plaintiffs shall pay the deficiency so determined by the Court. They shall also pay the costs of the Government Advocate (Rs. 120) for the day.