JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - The question, which 40 arises for consideration in this revision, is as to how the relief for demolition of constructions should be valued for purposes of court-fees. The case has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge as there is conflict between two Single Judge decisions of this Court. 2. In the suit, out of which this revision arises, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs against the State of U. P. :- " (A) -A decree concelling the land acquisition proceedings in Case No. 6615711 146 taken by defendant be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing the defendant to demolish the constructions and plantations in dispute as detailed below within the time prescribed by the Court and in case of the defendant's failure to demolish the same within the prescribed period of time, directing demolition of the same through the court Amin at the defendant's expense. (B) Decree for possession over the lot plot in Suit No. 107/1 corresponding to new plots 117 and 118 situate in village Kithuri Itwa, tappa Kapri Mahson, Pergana Mahuli West, District Basti, be passed in favour of the plaintiff, ejecting the defendant from the same." 3. Paragraph 12 of the plaint, in which the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fees was given, reads :- "12. That the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of reliefs (A) and .(B) are laid at Rs. 56,376. 38 P. and Rs. 300/- respectively, the same being the market-value of the plaintiff's property in suit according to 20 times of the annual revenue and for purposes of court-fees Rs. 50/- for relief (A) and Rs. 30/- for relief (B) according to twice the annual revenue and for purposes of cancellation, the valuation of land in suit involved according to its assumed rental of Rs. 2/8/- is Rs. 50/- on which Rs. 5/- court-fee is paid." 4. On February 8, 1965, the Stamp Reporter reported that, in addition to the court-fees paid, an additional court-fees of Rs. 485/-was payable as a court-fee of Rs. 500/- was a. payable on the relief of demolition of constructions etc. under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act. Against this report, objections were filed by the plaintiffs. On February 8, 1965, the Stamp Reporter reported that, in addition to the court-fees paid, an additional court-fees of Rs. 485/-was payable as a court-fee of Rs. 500/- was a. payable on the relief of demolition of constructions etc. under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act. Against this report, objections were filed by the plaintiffs. By his order dated March 15, 1965, the Civil Judge held that the court-fee paid was sufficient. Against this order, the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P., has come up to this Court in revision. 5. A suit for demolition is really one for a mandatory injunction directing demolition. To such a suit Section 7 (iv-B) applies. The relevant portion of this provision is as follows :- "7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follow :- ........................ (iv-B) - in suits - (a) ........................ (b) to obtain an injunction .................................... according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint : 6. Provided that such amount shall not be less than one-fifth of the market-value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought or Rs. 200/- whichever is greater. 7. Provided further that in the case of suits falling under clauses (a) and (b) , the amount of court-fee leviable shall, in no case, exceed Rs. 500/-. 8. Explanation 1. When the relief sought is with reference to an immovable property, "the market-value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with sub-sec. (v) , (v-A) or (v-B) of this section, as the case may be. Explanation 2. ................." Upon a plain reading of this section it is clear that the relief for an injunction has to be valued, for purposes of court-fees, according to the market-value of the property involved or affected by the relief. Sub-sec. (v) of Section 7 is applicable in the present case as it deals with lands, buildings or gardens. Buildings and gardens have to be valued according to the provisions of paragraph (II) of sub-sec. (v) which again provides that where the subject-matter is a building or garden, it has to be valued according to the market-value of the building or garden, as the case may be. Buildings and gardens have to be valued according to the provisions of paragraph (II) of sub-sec. (v) which again provides that where the subject-matter is a building or garden, it has to be valued according to the market-value of the building or garden, as the case may be. There can be no doubt that the "property involved or affected" by the relief for demolition is the property which is sought to be demolished, even though the plaintiff does not claim it to be his own. We can see no justification for the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is only the property, which the plaintiff claims, which can be taken into account in determining the valuation for purposes of court-fees. 9. We may now examine the two single Judge decisions which have taken the conflicting views. In Mst. Kulsumun-Nisan v. Khushnudi Begum, 1953 ALJ 702. Brij Mohan Lall, J. held that, for a relief for demolition, the court-fee will not be paid, under Section 7 (v) but under Article 17 (vi) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act. The learned Judge held that if a relief for . demolition was asked for in addition to the relief for possession, a separate court-fee had to be pad on the relief for demolition. He, however, assumed that it was not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute involved in the relief for demolition and that there was no other provision in the Act covering such a case and that, therefore, Article 17 (vi) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act applied under which a fixed court-fee of Rs. 18/12/- was chargeable. We are unable to agree with this view that the relief of demolition cannot be valued or .is not specifically provided for in the Court Fees Act. As already observed, this relief is to be valued, in accordance with Section 7 (iv-B) read with sub-sec. (v) (ii) , according to the market-value of the constructions sought to be demolished. 10. In Banwari Lal v. Ram Gopal, 1957 ALJ 438, Desai J., (as he then was) held that a relief requiring a defendant to demolish certain ,constructions illegally made by him is a mandatory injunction and the relief for it must be valued as laid down in Section 7 (iv-B) . 10. In Banwari Lal v. Ram Gopal, 1957 ALJ 438, Desai J., (as he then was) held that a relief requiring a defendant to demolish certain ,constructions illegally made by him is a mandatory injunction and the relief for it must be valued as laid down in Section 7 (iv-B) . He observed : "The property involved in, or affected by, the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition is the market-value of the constructions desired by the plaintiffs to be demolished by the defendants .................. The only dispute is whether the relief of mandatory injunction is to be valued under Section 7 (iv-B) or under Article 17 (vi) of Schedule II. Court-fee is payable under Article 17 (vi) in a suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by the Act. If the subject-matter in dispute can be valued under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) , it follows that it cannot be valued under Article 17 (vi) . Section 7 (iv-B). (b) lays down how the relief of an injunction is to be valued. Injunction includes not only a prohibitory injunction but also a mandatory injunction. Requiring a defendant to demolish certain constructions. illegally made by him is a mandatory injunction and the relief for it must be valued as laid down in Section 7 (iv-B) (b) ." 11. We are in full agreement with these observations. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff re-lied upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Shanti Prasad v. Ch. Mahabir Singh, 1957 ALJ 431 (FB). We are unable to appreciate how this case helps the plaintiff. In this case, no relief for demolition was asked for, even though certain illegal constructions had been made by the defendants on the land over which possession was sought. No relief in respect of the illegal constructions was prayed for and the Full Bench observed : "As the plaintiff was not claiming the constructions built or the garden planted by the defendants on the land in list 'A", they could not be considered to be the subject-matter of the suit, and the plaintiff was, therefore, not bound to include their value in the valuation of the suit for the purposes of payment of court-fee." 13. These observations can have no application or relevance to a suit where a relief for demolition of constructions alleged to have been illegally made by the defendant is also asked for. In such a case, the constructions are the subject-matter of the relief of demolition and, therefore, the market-value has to be determined for purposes of court-fees for this relief. 14. We are accordingly of opinion that the report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps and Registration was correct and that the plaintiff was liable to pay a court-fee of Rs. 500/- on the relief for demolition of the "constructions and plantations" standing on the land in dispute. It may be mentioned that it has not been disputed before us that the value of the property sought to be demolished is Rs. 56,376.38 and that, if court-fee is to be paid under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) , it would come to Rs. 500/-. 15. If the plaintiff had only claimed the tax relief of possession over the land without asking for demolition or possession of the constructions made thereon, the subject-matter of the relief would have been only the land and not the constructions. If a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant could either remove the constructions or let the plaintiff take them along with the land. The plaintiff would, in that case, have to pay court-fee on the value of the land and not of the buildings but, if, in addition to the relief of possession of the land, the plaintiff asks for the relief of demolition of the constructions standing on the land, the subject-matter of this relief will be the constructions, and he has to pay an additional court-fee for the relief calculated on the basis of the market-value of the constructions. Of course, it is open to the plaintiff to give up the relief of demolition. 16. We accordingly allow this revision, set aside the order of the Civil Judge dated March 15, 1965, and order that the plaintiff or his successors shall pay a further court-fee of Rs. 485/- within three months. In case the plaintiff or his successors give up the relief of demolition, they will not be required to pay any further court-fee. There will be no order as to costs.