H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises under S. 115 of the CPC from the judgment and order dt. 31st March, 1998 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore deciding the issue No. 4 to the effect that whether the defendants prove that the Court fee paid is insufficient. ( 2 ) THE Court below after detailed consideration of the matter has opined that the case was one covered by S. 24 (b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. No doubt, an attempt was made by the defendant to avoid payment of Court fees. It found that the case could not be said to be covered by Section 24 (b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It further opined that substantial relief sought for was not a declaration of the right of the plaintiff, but a declaration that the proposed action to recover the amount from the defendants should be stopped and so it directed that the plaintiff has to pay the Court fee of Rs. 7,61,092/- and file a fresh valuation slip. ( 3 ) I have heard Miss. T. V. Honnamathi holding brief for Sri H. S. Dwarakanath counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri B. Aswathaiah, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner Miss. Honnamathi submitted that the plaintiff has not sought for any title to the property nor has sought for anything against the recovery of the amount, but the plaintiff has only sought for a declaration that notice dated 2-12-1996 is illegal, null and void as has not been issued by a competent person and therefore the case was covered by 24 (d) and Court fee had rightly been paid and that Court below was wrong in directing the revision petitioner to pay the Court fee on Rs. 7,61,062/- That the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner has been contested by the respondents' counsel Sri. B. Aswathaiah. He submitted that the order cannot be said to be suffering from the jurisdictional error. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel submitted that whether S. 24 (b) did cover the case or S. 24 (d) of the Act did apply may be a question of interpretation and application of law and not a question of jurisdiction or jurisdictional error under S. 115 of C. P. C. Sri. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel submitted that whether S. 24 (b) did cover the case or S. 24 (d) of the Act did apply may be a question of interpretation and application of law and not a question of jurisdiction or jurisdictional error under S. 115 of C. P. C. Sri. B. Aswathaiah contended that relief claimed is decree for a declaration, no doubt of notice dated 2-12-1996 to be illegal, null and void. He submitted that under that letter dt. 2-12-96 really the allotment has been cancelled and the plaintiff wanted to revive that allotment and further the plaintiff has claimed the relief that respondents be restrained from taking any action under the said notice as well as from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shed allotted to it. The learned counsel contended that really injunction relief or clause (c) relief related to the immoveable property and the shed allotted is very clearly mentioned even in the plaint to be worth more than rupees 5 lakhs. That according to the Market Committee it is worth Rs. 8 lakhs. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the Court below has rightly found that it is covered by S. 24 (b) and there is no merit in the revision. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) SECTION 24 (b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as under :"where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher. "clause (b) of S. 24 is very clear that where the relief claimed is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to immoveable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or Rs. one thousand whichever is higher. Here, in the present case, the relief as claimed in plaint is that. (a) Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that the judgment and decree of declaration declaring that the letter dt. 2-12-96 bearing reference No. IEB:rjn:bomm:a-28/96/1277 issued by the second defendant is void. (b) For consequential reliefs of injunction restraining the defendants from doing any act in furtherance of the said letter dt. (a) Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that the judgment and decree of declaration declaring that the letter dt. 2-12-96 bearing reference No. IEB:rjn:bomm:a-28/96/1277 issued by the second defendant is void. (b) For consequential reliefs of injunction restraining the defendants from doing any act in furtherance of the said letter dt. 2-12-96 bearing No. IEB:rjn:bomm:a-28/96/1277 issued by the second defendant. (c) And for further consequential relief of injunction not to dispossess the plaintiff from the shed allotted to it by the first defendant vide letter dt. 31-12-90 bearing No. CM. IES. Z-I. A-28 BOMMASANDRA PS. 90, issued by the first defendant. "the letter dated 2-12-1996 is nothing but an order of cancellation of allotment. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has been kind enough to bring that document for my notice and perusal. It is through this document, it has been brought to the notice of the addressee, that the addressee has not taken any action to clear of and pay Rs. 5,10,950/- and Rs. 2,24,196/- towards penal interest as on 30-9-1996, it as such provides that on account of his failure to make payment as above which amounts to violation of terms of allotment, the allotment of shed No. A-28 made in favour of the revision petitioner "is hereby cancelled" and payments "made by him is forfeited. " Therefore, it calls upon the addressee to clear of the arrears and hand over the possession of the shed within seven days failing which the possession of shed from addressee will be resumed as per procedure prescribed and arrears will be recovered as land Revenue. ( 7 ) THE relief claimed in the suit of declaration decree seeking declaration of notice/letter dated 2-12-96 and the consequential relief of injunction, that defendants be restrained from taking possession of the property from the plaintiff related to immovable property. This being the position, that the consequential relief has reference to the immovable property and the value of the property runs to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. A portion of instalment might have been paid. Therefore, the valuation had to be fixed and computed on one-half of the market value for which allotment of shed was made in his favour though the amount was to be paid in instalments. 5 lakhs. A portion of instalment might have been paid. Therefore, the valuation had to be fixed and computed on one-half of the market value for which allotment of shed was made in his favour though the amount was to be paid in instalments. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Court below has rightly recorded the findings and ordered plaintiffs to file a fresh valuation slip and the Court fee which no doubt has to be paid according on one-half of the market value of the property. What will be that amount, that is the question on which will depend upon the Court fee payable. It may come to Rs. 7,61,092/- or less. Anyway, the plaintiff-revision petitioner has to pay Court one-half of the market value of the property and not the amount that has been shown towards penal interest. So, subject to this modification order impugned is to be maintainable this revision petition is allowed in part of only to this extent. That instead of figure being Rs. 7,61,092/-, the Court fee has to be paid on the sums which is equal to one-half of market value of the property to which the notice relates namely the notice of cancellation of allotment. The plaintiff has to file correct valuation slip indicating the value of accommodation allotted namely the Shed No. 28 and for the purpose of computation of Court fee payable on one-half of the value of the shed. When this valuation slip is filed along with the Court fee, by the plaintiff, the Trial Court will examine this question whether the correct Court fee has been paid or not. ( 9 ) LET needful action be done within three months. With the above directions, order impugned is maintained subject to these modification and direction. This revision petition is thus disposed of as above. --- *** --- .