Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.
1. This is a suit by a person claiming as reversioner for various reliefs one of them being the appointment of a Receiver to preserve the property from being further wasted by the heiress in possession. He also claims a declaration that certain mortgages a partition deed and two decrees obtained by consent to all of which he was a party represented by his guardian should be declared not binding on him. In so far as he asks for a declaration that the transactions to which he was a party should be declared not binding on him, the real relief he wants is to set aside all those transactions in so far as he is concerned. This may be incapable of precise valuation and the plaintiff is entitled to value the reliefs which he seeks in respect of these matters and pay ad valorem duty on the value of the relief as fixed by him in his plaint. Arunachalam chetty v. Rangasamy Filial 28 Ind. Cas. 79 : 28 M.L.J. 118 : (1915) m.W.N. 118 : 17 M.L.T. 154, That is what he has been asked to do by the lower Court and I think that is right.
2. As regards the prayer for a Receiver it has been held in this Court by a Bench consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Seshagiri Aiyar that ad valorem Court-fee is payable in cases of this nature because the relief by way of appointment of a Receiver is a consequential relief. That decision also lays down that the plaintiff is entitled to value the relief at his option. The lower Court in this case has asked the plaintiff to pay ad valorem duty on the value of the properties of which he asks for a. Receiver as if the suit was one for possession of these properties. The distinction between a case where a party asks for possession to be delivered to himself or to some other person on his behalf and a case where he wants a Receiver to be appointed for merely preserving the property for whomsoever may be entitled on the death of the widow, is obvious. The plaintiff is, therefore entitled to value the relief as regards the Receiver and the valuation put upon that relief by the lower Court is wrong. To that extent the order of the lower Court will be modified.
3. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents Counsel that I should not interfere at this stage but that the plaintiff should wait for a dismissal of his suit by disobeying the lower Court's order and then come up either by way of appeal or revision. In a case Ramrup Das v. Mohunt Sujaram Das 14 C.W.N. 932, the learned Judges held that an order like the present one was really an order declining to entertain jurisdiction unless certain things were done and in that view the High Court has power to interfere with that order. I follow that decision and hold that I have power to interfere at this stage.
4. With the modification suggested above the order of the lower Court will be confirmed. There will be no costs here.