( 1 ) THE Chief Inspector of Stamps pointed out a deficiency in respect of the court fee payable in the trial Court on the plaint. When the Taxing Officer required the appellant to make up the deficiency the appellant objected to the report of the Chief inspector of Stamps. The appeal being triable by a Bench, the Taxing Officer directed that the case be laid before a Bench. That is how the case has come before us.

( 2 ) THE appellant was the plaintiff. The two defendants impleaded in the suit were his own brothers. It was alleged in the plaint that the parties were originally members of a joint Hindu family which carried on the business of manufacturing sandal-wood oil. it had a factory at kanauj for extracting that oil. There was a branch factory at Calcutta also. The plaintiff further alleged that when the family was joint he was recognized by all the members as the Managing proprietor of the business and continued to act as such. Subsequently the family business was converted into a partnership concern and according to the plaintiff in this partnership concern also the plaintiff was recognized and allowed to work as a Managing Partner. As such Managing partner he was the occupier of the factory and the employer of the persons employed in it for the purposes of the Factories Act. According to him the defendants disputed his status as a managing Partner and had behind his back passed a resolution on the 23rd of February 1953 which adversely affected his position as a Managing Partner. This resolution was, according to the plaintiff, null and void. On these allegations, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:

(a) That in view of the fact that the plaintiff is managing partner of the firm M/s Mathura Prasad suraj Prasad, Makrandnagar, Kanauj, and is occupier and employer of the M. S. Sandal-wood oil Factory, Makrandnagar, Kanauj, and is acting as such in respect of the said partnership and the said factory and that the defendants are not competent to challenge the aforesaid status of the plaintiff the defendants may be restrained by a perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, in his acting as the managing partner of the said firm and as occupier and employer of the said factory, till the time the firm is dissolved, and from doing any act which may be prejudicial to the plaintiffs aforesaid status.

(b) That it may be declared that the resolutions alleged to have been passed by the defendants in the alleged meeting of 23-2-1953 are ultra vires, ab initio void, incompetent and without jurisdiction and are not binding on the plaintiff. (c) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants. (d) Any other relief, to which, having regard to the facts of the case, the plaintiff may be deemed entitled, may also be granted to the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE claim was valued on the approximate price of the property in dispute at rupees four lacs for the purpose of jurisdiction. The plaintiff paid Rs. 250/- as court-fee for the first relief under section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act. A court fee of Rs. 18/12/- for the second relief was paid under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Act.

( 4 ) THE Chief Inspector of Stamps is of opinion that tf the entire plaint is taken into consideration the relief which the plaintiff claimed was really a declaratory decree with a consequential relief and court fee was, therefore, payable under Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act. The amount payable under that provision would have been Rs. 5,502/3/- as against Rs. 268/12/- actually paid. There was, according to him, a deficiency of the same amount so far as the appeal in this Court was concerned. But we are at present not concerned with that deficiency.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff objects to the report of the Chief inspector of Stamps and contends that he is not correct in his view trial the suit was for a declaratory decree where a consequential relief