1. The plaint contains two principal prayers, firstly, that certain sales in favour of the defendants Nos. 2 to 18 made by the Official Receiver Gopala Aiyar be declared to be not valid in law, and secondly that a fresh receiver be appointed and the properties made over to him. On the first prayer plaintiffs have paid Rs. 10 that is for the declaratory relief valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 38,000; and the 2nd prayer they valued at Rs. 100 and have paid thereon an ad-valorem fee of Rs. 7-8-0. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that they ought to have paid ad-valorem fee on Rs. 38,000. He relies upon certain rulings of this Court in support of that view. We do not think that those rulings really lay down any such proposition. The case in Achammal v. V. Achammal : (1910)20MLJ791 which follows the case in Chingacham Vittil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vittil Gopala Menon I.L.R. (1906) M. 18 and also the case in Samiya Mavali v. Minammal I.L.R. (1899) M. 490 were all cases in which the plaintiff was a party to the deed which he wanted to have declared invalid on the ground of fraud or on similar allegations. But in this case the plaintiffs were no parties to the sales and they seek to have a declaration to the effect that the sales were brought about by the fraud of the Official Receiver and consequently not valid and binding upon them. As pointed out in a somewhat similar case in Unni v. Kunchi Amma I.L.R. (1890) M. 26 the claim for the cancellation of the deeds of sales was not a necessary part of the relief which the plaintiffs were seeking and therefore it was not right to say that the suit was in substance a suit to obtain the cancellation of the instrument.
2. Granting that it was so, the plaintiffs were entitled to value the relief as they liked to pay the fee on such valuation. Even if the second prayer may be taken to amount to consequential relief that would not in our opinion make any difference, because under Section 7 Clause 4 Sub clause (c), the plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee on their own valuation. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the respondents that as a matter of fact the valuation for the purposes of court-fee must be taken to be Rs. 38,000 which was the valuation in the plaint for the purposes of jurisdiction. But he overlooks the fact that the consequential relief on which alone the fee was to be paid at the ad valorem rate has been valued at Rs. 100 which the plaintiffs were entitled to do and they have paid court fee on that. We do not think therefore that the order of the Subordinate Judge is right. It will be set aside and the case will be remitted to him for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.