1. This is a Reference tinder the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff-appellant Musammat Ganga Devi is the wife of Beni Prasad alias Tirbeni Prasad. The latter has been adjudged a lunatic and the plaintiff sues as Manager of his property. Previous to his being adjudged a lunatic but while the proceedings were pending Tirbeni Prasad executed a deed of gift in favour of the defendants, and they have taken possession of the property there under. The pliantiff alleges that Tirbeni Prasad was a lunatic at the time when this deed of gift was executed and she has brought the suit for the following reliefs:
(a) that it may be declared that the deed of gift executed by Tirbeni Prasad in favour of the defendant is invalid and void and that the defendant has thereby acquired no right in the property mentioned in the deed.
(b) for actual possession of the land conveyed by the deed, and
(c) for the recovery of the amount which the defendant has recovered under the deed.
2. The Court below has found that Tirbeni Prasad was of sound mind when he executed the deed and has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred a first appeal from this decree. The question to be decided is whether the suit is one for a declaration with consequential relief on which Court-fee is payable under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act or whether it can be treated as a suit for possession under Section 7 (v). Now the suit as framed is clearly one for a declaration with consequential relief. It is, therefore, beside the mark to suggest that the suit might have been framed so as to ask for different relief or in other words that it might have been framed purely as a suit for possession. The plaintiff has to pay Court-fees on the relief which she seeks to obtain by the suit. The relief which she claims being a declaration that the deed of gift is invalid -against her with consequential relief of possession of the property conveyed by the deed, the fee is payable under Section 7(iv)(c). As to this I agree with the remarks of Piggott, J. in Rup Narain v. Biswanath 68 Ind. Cas. 265 : 44 A. 629 : 20 A.L.J. 587 : 4 U.P.L.R. (A.) 192 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 358, The appellant must, therefore, make good the deficiency in Court-fee in this Court and in the Court below in accordance with the office report. I allow her two months time to do this. If the Court-fee is not made good within the time allowed the appeal will be laid before a Bench for orders as being insufficiently stamped.