Short Note : 1. After framing the issues the Court below tried issues No.3 and 4 as preliminary issues The Court found that the market value of the suit plot was about Rs.8,000 to 10,000. But it held that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to pay Court-fees on the market value of the plot and that the Court fees which was paid by the plaintiffs was proper and the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved by the said order the defendant has filed the present revision. 2. Held: Shri Ashok Garg, learned counsel for the non-applicant, submitted, that the suit was not governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act because according to him the relief of injunction was not a consequential relief but was an independent relief. This submission of Shri Garg is not well founded. On reading of the plaint it is quite clear that the plaintiffs being in possession of the suit plot, have prayed for injunction as consequential relief to the relief of declaration of their title to the suit land. 3. However, considering the nature of the dispute between the parties it cannot be said that the valuation put forth by the plaintiffs is capricious, arbitrary or unreasonable. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs the defendant had no authority to mortgage the suit land. The mortgage which the plaintiffs challenged was for Rs.1,000. In view of this it cannot be said that the valuation of Rs.500 is so arbitrary and unreasonable that the Court should exercise its power and put its own valuation instead of the valuation put by the plaintiff. 4. It has been held by the Privy Council in Sunderbai and another v. Collector of Begnm and others, AIR 1918 PC 135 , that where the plaintiff sues for decleratory decree and asks for consequential relief, and puts his own valuation upon that consequential relief, then for the purposes of Court fee and also for the purposes of jurisdiction, it is the value that the plaintiff puts upon the plaint that determines both. 1964 JLJ 448 distinguished, AIR 1918 PC 135 & AIR 1958 SC 245 , relied on. Revision dismissed.