Short Note : 1. Three issues viz, 9, 10 and 11 were tried as preliminary issues. They related to the valuation of the suit property for Court fees, jurisdiction of the Court and maintainability of the suit. The Court has decided the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit in favour of the plaintiff. However, the Court has held that the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of Court-fees and has directed the plaintiff to make good the deficiency. Aggrieved by this part of the order the plaintiff has submitted this revision. Held : The plaintiffs have valued the suit for declaration at Rs. 6,000 and has paid Rs. 30 as fixed Court-fees. As regards the permanent injunction the suit has been valued at Rs. 400 and Court-fee of Rs. 40 has been paid thereon. As regards compensation the suit has been valued at Rs. 1,500 and Court-fee of Rs. 150 has been paid thereon. The trial Court has held that injunction claimed against defendants Nos. 8 and 9 is consequential in nature and, therefore, the suit ought also to have been valued at Rs. 6,000 for purposes of Court-fees as it has been valued for purposes of jurisdiction under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. The Court has also held that the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value to be specified by the plaintiff for declaration that defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have no right what-so-ever in the suit well. In my opinion the learned Judge was not right in holding that the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs against defendants 8 and 9 is consequential in nature. According to the plaintiffs the defendants Nos. 5, 6 & 7 have no title to the suit well but other defendants have some title or share in the suit well. They have claimed declaration for their title to a share in the suit well. They have not claimed injunction against all the defendants. The injunction claimed by them is against defendants 8 and 9 only who have also some title in the suit well. According to the plaintiffs the defendants 8 & 9 want to irrigate some more land than they are entitled to and to that extent the defendant have claimed a permanent injunction. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the relief of injunction is consequential in nature. According to the plaintiffs the defendants 8 & 9 want to irrigate some more land than they are entitled to and to that extent the defendant have claimed a permanent injunction. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the relief of injunction is consequential in nature. It is an independent relief. In the circumstances the plaintiffs have rightly paid Court-fee of Rs. 30 for declaration. The relief of injunction which is an independent relief has been valued at Rs. 400 and Court-fee of Rs. 40 has been properly paid. As stated above as regards compensation ad valorem Court-fee has been paid by the plaintiffs. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is proper and the order of the Court below demanding additional Court-fee from the plaintiffs is not proper. 2. Shri K.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that each of the plaintiff have claimed declaration in regard to his share and therefore, each of them should have paid separately Court-fee in regard to relief of declaration. He placed reliance upon decisions in T.S. Venkatanarayan Iyer v. The State of Madras through the District Collector, Madhurai, AIR 1953 Madras 888, In re, D. Lakshminarayana Chettiar and other, AIR 1954 Madras 594 and Haru Bepari and others v. Roy Kshitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur and others, AIR 1935 Calcutta 573. It appears that though it was the plea of the defendants in their written statement, this aspect of the matter has not been pressed before the Court below at the hearing of this issue. However, the plaintiffs have jointly claimed declaration of title 21/25th share in the suit well details whereof has been given in schedule B of the plaint. In the circumstances it was not necessary, for the plaintiffs to pay separate Court-fee in regard to declaration of their respective share. The decisions relied upon by the non-applicants are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of this case. AIR 1953 Madras 888, AIR 1954 Madras 394 and AIR 1935 Cal. 573, distinguished. Revision allowed.