JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a conveyance executed by her on the 18th February 1916 was void and inoperative. The case for the plaintiff is that it had been represented to her that the document was a deed of mortgage and that on the faith of this representation she affixed her signature thereto. She has since discovered that the document is in reality a conveyance. She further alleges that, notwithstanding the execution of the document and the delivery of the deed to the defendant, she is still in possession. In the Court of first instance, a Question was raised, whether a suit of this description could be regarded as a suit for a declaratory decree and whether Rs. 10 was the proper Court-fee payable on the plaint. The Trial Court answered this question in favour of the plaintiff, but on the merits dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has not considered the merits of the case, but has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint Was inadequately stamped. We are of opinion that this view cannot be supported.

2. There can be no room for controversy that if the allegation of the plaintiff is well founded, the document c