( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Civil judge, Belgaum. The facts that give rise to these appeals may briefly be stated thus: R. S. No. 122 measuring 12 acres 23 guntas and P. KJ5 gunthas of Budihal village was acquired for the Malaprabha Project. In respect of this a compensation of Rs. 13417-29 Ps were paid to Hanmant Kedaileppa suryavamshi, who is the common defendant in all the suits. The plaintiffs in these cases had separately claimed specific shares in this compensation amount in the trial Court on the ground that they were co-sharers along with the defendant. The defendant raised an objection that the plaintiffs without valuing the suits for the purpose of jurisdiction properly and without asking for a declaration for their specific shares in the land acquired and without paying proper court fee, the suits filed by them as such in the Munsiff Court cannot be entertained. A preliminary issue was raised namely, whether the defendant proves that the Munsiff Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suits ? The learned Munsiff directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to a proper Court holding that the valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction. Aggrieved by that order, the plaintiffs preferred appeals to the Court of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, who by a common order held that the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs was correct, and their case falls within the scope of S. 50 (1) of the Court fees Act (the Act ). In that view, he reversed the order of the Munsiff and directed the Munsiff to try the suits. Aggrieved by this decision the defendant has preferred these appeals. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs in these cases have claimed specific amount from the defendant basing their claim that they were co-sharers with the defendant and had specific share in the property acquired. Since they have claimed for specific amount in the suits, the plaint was valued for the purpose of Court fee, under S. 21 of the Act. S. 50 (1) of the Act states that:"in a suit as to whose value for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of Courts specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing fee, payable under this Act shall be the same. S. 50 (1) of the Act states that:"in a suit as to whose value for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of Courts specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing fee, payable under this Act shall be the same. "it ia not the case of the parties that a specific provision is made elsewhere in the Act. The question that arises for consideration is, whether ike case of the plaintiffs fell under S. 50 (1) of the Act or, as contended by mr. Albal, the learned Counsel for the appellant, under sub-sec. (2) of s. 50 of the Act. Mr. Albal relied upon three decisions of this Court. The first decision is Annappa Padmanna Bogar v. Hanumantha, 1960 Mys. L. J. 870. In that case the suit was for a declaration that the proceedings instituted la respect of alleged. evasion of income tax by the plaintiff were void and for recovery of possession of lands sold in the said proceedings and for an injunction restraining the income tax officer and collector from recovering the alleged evaded income tax. ( 3 ) IT was held that the relief for injunction was consequential since it was directed against the very consequences resulting from the income tax evasion, proceedings. Again, as the relief for possession cannot be given unless the income tax proceedings were declared void, that was also a consequential relief. ( 4 ) THE second case is in J. A. Mathias v. M. G. Changappa, 1960 Mys. L. J. 711. In that case, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that he was entitled to cut and remove the timber trees standing on the suit schedule properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with such cutting and removal. ( 5 ) IT was pointed out by thib Court that the reliefs sought in the suit fell under S. 4 (iv) (c) and had to be valued under S. 4 (v) (A) (a) of the Act. That is, the plaintiff had to pay on the valuaiton of the land and not on the market value of the trejes concerned in the suit. The third, case is in Prabhakar v. Parvathamma, (1963)1 Mys. L. J. 326. That is, the plaintiff had to pay on the valuaiton of the land and not on the market value of the trejes concerned in the suit. The third, case is in Prabhakar v. Parvathamma, (1963)1 Mys. L. J. 326. In that case it was held that where the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a certain decree was not binding on them, and they were not parties to the decree as to the mortgage on the foot of which the decr,eie was obtained, there is no need for them to get the decree cancelled and they are entitled to value the relief as a declaratory relief and pay court fee accordingly. Mr. Bhat, the learned Counsel on the other side, relied upon the decision of this Court in Subbarao Rariba Ravalu Kedari v. Kalappa Nana kadpure, (1972) 1 Mys. L. J. 180. The facts are slightly different from the instant case. But ratio of that decision is applicable to the facts of these cases. In all these cases the Proviso to S. 50 (1) and sub-sec. (2) of S. 50 is not applicable, but sub-sec. (1) of S. 50 applies. The plaintiffs in these cases have asked for specific amounts. Therefore, the Court has to consider the relief that has been asked for and not the relief which they could have asked in deciding the question as to whether the Court Fee is properly paid and the suit is properly valued. ( 6 ) THE cases cited above by Mr. Albal do not apply to the facts of these cases. That being the position, the decision given by the lower appellate-Court is correct. Hence, these appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .