Sinha, J.

1. This application is by the plaintiffs against an order of the Court below demanding ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act.

2. The suit was brought for a declarations that a certain Bazidawa deed executed by the plaintiffs mother and her sister was invalid, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs as the document was procured by fraud. The court below thinks that this suit involves a relief in the form of consequential relief and that the plaintiffs should have also asked for cancellation of the document. The consequential relief according to the court below though not asked for, must he held to have been asked for on reading the substance of the plaint, and therefore, ad valorem Court fee is payable. Reliance is placed on the case of Kamla Prasad V/s. Jagarnath Prasad. I.L.R. 10 Pat 432 : (AIR 1931 Pat 78) (A), in support of the decision to which the court below has arrived.

3. As was said in the case of Mt. Rupia V/s. Bhatu Mahton, AIR 1944 Pat 17 (FB) (B).

"....caution must be observed so as not to import into the plaint anything which it does not really contain, either actually or by necessary implication. In construing the plain