( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order under Section 16a, Court-fees Act. It arises out of a suit brought by three plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 alleges himself to be the trustee and manager of the property dedicated in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, who arc the deities in whose favour the property is said to have been dedicated under a deed executed by one Smt. Janki. The aforementioned three plaintiffs came to court seeking the following reliefs: 1. That it be declared that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sunjhari in favour of Sri Ram Janki dated 14-10-49, in respect of the house in suit is void ab initio and does not affect the title and interests of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3;

( 2 ) IF it be found that the plaintiffs are not In possession of the house in suit, then possession be delivered to the deities who are plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 by ejecting the defendants. 2. The trial court held that so far as the first relief is concerned, it involves cancellation of or adjudging void a sale deed executed by Smt. Sunjhari who was a predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs in favour of Sri Ram Janki; and therefore the court fee on the said relief was payable under Section 7 (iv-A) (1) of the Court-Fees Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh. So far as the second relief is concerned, it held that the plaintiffs being out of possession, they are liable to pay an ad valorem court fee under Section 7 (v) of the Court-Fees Act.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED with the said order, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal in this Court.

( 4 ) IT has been argued before us that so far as the first relief is concerned the court fee is payable not under Section 7 (iv-A) (1) of the Court-Fees Act, but under Section 7 (iv-A) (2) of the court-Fees Act

( 5 ) SECTION 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees Act provides as follows:

"in suits for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market value, or an instrument securing money or other property having such value: 1. where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was a party to the decree or the instrument, according to the value of the subject matter, and 2. where he or his predecessor was not a party to the decree or instrument, according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter,

( 6 ) IT is argued before us in the present case that the plaintiff or his predecessor, was not a party to the instrument, and hence the court fee should have been levied on one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter of the suit.

( 7 ) BEFORE determining the question of court-fee, it is necessary to narrate briefly the facts averred by the plaintiff in the plaint in so far as they are relevant to this issue. According to the plaintiffs case one Gokulji was the owner of the house in suit. He dedicated it to the deities Shri Radha krishnaji and Shri Balakrishnaji who are plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. Gokulji died issueless and left behind a widow named Smt. Janki. The dedication of Gokulji was an oral one. No deed of endowment was executed by him. Accordingly, after his death, his widow Smt. Janki executed a waqf deed dated 27-8-1902. By this deed, she appointed herself as the Mutwalli and Manager of this waqf for her life-time. In the year 1922 she executed a will in her capacity as a trustee whereby she appointed one Ugra kishore Dube cousin of plaintiff No. 1 as trustee after her death. She further authorised Ugra kishore Dube to nominate a trusee and manager after him. Under this power, Ugra Kishore Dube executed a will dated 27-7-1926, appointing Smt. Sunjhari as manager and trustee for her life-time. He further directed that after her death, Ram Dutt Dube, father of plaintiff No. 1 was to become the manager and trustee and thereafter the office of trustee would devolve upon the descendants of Ram Dutt Dube. Ram Dutt died eleven years ago leaving the plaintiff No. 1 as his heir and descendent. Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the manager and trustee as a descendant and heir o