FA No. 12 of 2009 Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the appellant. The Stamp Reporter has reported deficiency of court fee amounting Rs.500/- Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that office report is incorrect, as the suit was for injunction and declaration. As to the injunction, the suit was decreed and only for relief of declaration, the suit was dismissed. As such, the appeal is filed not against the entire decree, but against the refusal of declaration. That being so, though the appellant is required to show valuation of the appeal to the full amount of Rs.64,414/, but court fee payable on this appeal is only Rs.200/-, as the appeal relates to relief of declaration alone. I agree with the view and hold that there is no deficiency of court fee. Also, heard on admission and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2008, passed by trial court (Additional District Judge / I Fast Track Court, Roorkee), in Suit No. 110 of 2002. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Krishna Devi had a joint Fixed Term Deposit No. SDA63-995301 with defendant No. 1-State Bank of India, amounting Rs.66,414/- with defendant No. 2-Tejasvi Devi. The said F.D.R. was payable by the Bank to ‘either or survivor’. The plaintiff has sought declaration that the amount is not payable to defendant No. 2, who jointly held the F.D.R. with deceased Krishna Devi. In view of the term ‘either or survivor’ agreed by the deceased with Bank, it cannot be declared that only plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount of F.D.R.. Therefore, there is no error of law or that of fact in refusal of relief of declaration by the trial court. The appeal is dismissed summarily under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C.. (P.C.P., J.) 22.06.2009 NS