JUDGMENT. - The only question for my decision in this case is whether for the purposes of court-fee the plaint of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of S.7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act, or by S.7(v). The facts briefly are that the plaintiff effected two alienations of his properties in favour of his son and nephews in 1935. The object of these alienations was to place his properties beyond the reach of his creditors. Possession of the properties sold was transferred to the alienees and these properties thereafter remained in their possession. The alienees, namely, defendants 1 to 3, later transferred these properties to defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff then brought the present suit in which he alleged that the alienations effected by him were sham transactions and that the real title of the properties had throughout remained in him. He, therefore, sought a declaration that the two alienations effected by him were null and void and also prayed for possession of the properties in dispute by way of consequential relief. He also claimed a decree for the rendition of accounts. Ho valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.5, 100 with regard to the relief of declaration and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document