K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this appeal is posted for orders, by consent of parties it is taken up for final hearing as the matter is an old one and involves a very short question of law. ( 2 ) THE appellant plaintiff has filed the suit in question (OS No. 254 of 1973) in the Court of the Munsiff at Dharwar for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings started by respondent- 1 and 2 (who are the Deputy commissoner and the assistant Commissioner of Dhawar, respectively) under the notification bearing no. LAQ. SR. 295 including the notices issued thereunder for acquiring the lands belonging to tbe plaintiffs along with other lands situated in Sattur and Navlur villages under the Karnataka Industrial Areas development Act. 1966, are null and void and for a permanent injunction. The relief of declaration has been valued at Rs, 661 64 by the plaintiff, under S. 24 (b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The relief of injunction (rough valued at Rs. 100, no separate Court fee is paid on it on the ground that the relief of injunction is consequential to the main relief of declaration. Thus, the suit has been valued at Rs. 761-64 for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, ( 3 ) THE trial Court is of the view that the acquisition proceedings challenged in the suit relate to more than 23 acres of agricultural land, therefore, the subject matter of the suit is immoveable property ; hence the actual market value of the suit properties is necessary to be furnished for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of the Court. On taking this view, it has dismissed on 25 11 1974 the suit on the ground that the actual market value of the lands in question has not been furnished by the plaintiffs. There was an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs being RA No 111 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, dharwar, against the afore aid order dismissing the suit. The learned Civil Judge was also of the opinion that the suit was valued by the plaintiffs under S. 24 (b) of the Act and as such, the proviso to sub- sec. The learned Civil Judge was also of the opinion that the suit was valued by the plaintiffs under S. 24 (b) of the Act and as such, the proviso to sub- sec. (1) of S. 50 of the Act was attracted ; consequently, the actual market value of the lands involved in the acquisition was necessary for the purpose of determining jurisdretion the Court. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal by holding that the order passed by the trial Court should be treated as one passed under Or. 7 r. 11 of CPC. Hence, this second appeal. ( 4 ) THOUGH it is contended that the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the order passed by the trial Court has been treated by the lower appellate Court as one passed under Or. 7 R. 11 of CPC, it is not necessary to determine this question inasmuch as even if it is held that the appeal is not maintainable, it is open for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under S. 115 of CPC. Therefore, the matter is considered on merits. ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellants that though the suit is valued under S. 24 (b) of the Act, but the proper provision to be applied is S. 24 (d) of the act, inamuch as the relief of declaratioa that is sought for in the suit is not with reference to the immoveable property, but with reference to the acquisition proceedings taken out under the provisions of the karnataka Industrial Areas Development act. 1966. Therefore it is submitted that the valuation made for the purpose of court fee by the piaintiffy will hold good for the purpose of jurisdiction also as the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-sce. (1) S. 50 of the Act are not attracted. ( 6 ) ON the contrary, it is contended by sri Kothavale learned Government Pleader, that as the acquisition proceedings challenged in the suit in question relate to immoveable properties, it must be held that the plaintiffs in effect seek the relief in respect of the immoveable properties. Added to this, it is contended that the plaintiffs themselves have valued the suit under S. 24 (b) of the Act ; therefore, there has got to be two valuation, one for the purpose of Court fee and another for the purpose of jurisdiction. Added to this, it is contended that the plaintiffs themselves have valued the suit under S. 24 (b) of the Act ; therefore, there has got to be two valuation, one for the purpose of Court fee and another for the purpose of jurisdiction. Hence, it is contended that the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the actual market value of the immoveable properties involved in the acquisition must be furnished for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid contentions, the following point arises for determination :-"whether the provisions of S. 24 (b) or S. 24 (d) of the Act, are applicable to the suit in question ? s. 24 (b) and 24 (d) of the Act, are as follows :- "24. Suits for declaaration : In a suit for declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under S. 25, (a) x x x x (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immoveable property, fee shall be computed on one half of market value of the property or on lupees one hundred, whichever is higher. (c) x x x x (d) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees two hundred and fifty whichever is higher". ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute and it cannot also be disputed that what is challenged by the plaintiffs is the acquisition proceedngs taken out under the provisions of the karnataka Industrial Areas Development act, 1966. The relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs' in the suit is to declare that the acquisition proceedings in question in so far they relate to the lands belonging to the plaintiffs, are null and void and consequently to grant a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents or any other authorities or persons on their behalf from enforcing the notifications issued for acquiring the lands of the plaintiffs. The mere fact that the acquisition proceedings in question pertain to the immoveable properties of the plaintiffs, the said immoveable properties do not become the subject matter of the suit. The mere fact that the acquisition proceedings in question pertain to the immoveable properties of the plaintiffs, the said immoveable properties do not become the subject matter of the suit. The relief of declaration and consequential injunction sought for by the plaintiffs are not with reference to any immoveable property, but with reference to the notification issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for acquiring the immoveable properties of the plaintiffs. Thus the subject matter of the suit is not the immoveable properties but he validity of the acquisition proceedings. Hence the subject matter of the suit doe not fall under S- 24 (b) of the Act. For the purpose of determining the applicability of the provisions of the Act, the substance of the relief sought for is to be seen. Though the plaintiffs have wrongly valued the suit under S. 24 (b) of the Act, but it is the duty of the Court to apply the correct provision of law. Having regard to the relief sought for in the suit, the Court is required to determine as to which is the correct provision of the Act which applies to the suit for the purpose of finding out as to whether the valuation made in the suit for Court fee and jurisdiction is proper. ( 9 ) IT has already been pointed out that the relief sought for in the suit does not relate to immoveable property ; therefore it does not fall under S. 24 (b) of the Act. The relief sought for in the suit falls under s. 24 (d) of the Act, which is not one of the sections referred to in the opening clause of sub sec. (2) of S. 7 of the Act. Consequently the proviso to sub sec. (1) of S. 50 of the Act is not attracted. With the result there need not be two valuations one for the purpose of Court fee and another for the purpose of jurisdiction. That being so, it follows that the valuation made by the plaintiffs in the suit holds good for the purpose of Court fee as well as jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THUS, this appeal is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed. That being so, it follows that the valuation made by the plaintiffs in the suit holds good for the purpose of Court fee as well as jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THUS, this appeal is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to take the suit on its file and to dispose it of in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of this order. ( 11 ) IT is not necessary to pass any order on the application IA No. 6, for impleading filed by M/s. Bhoruka Textiles, in view of the fact that the appeal itself is disposed of. Howover, it is open for the applicant in IA No. 6 to apply to the trial court for impleading in the suit. ( 12 ) LET a copy of this order be despatched to the trial Court, at the earliest. --- *** --- .