Section 7 (IV-A) (2) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is not applicable to a suit for a declaration that the sale of a house by a receiver in insolvency proceedings was illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps from an order passed by the Additional civil Judge, Agra, holding that the court fee paid on the plaint in suit No. 52 of 1949 was sufficient.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs in the suit were the sons of one Kr. Nau Nihal Singh who had become an insolvent and the receiver appointed by the Court, defendant 1 in this case, had sold a house in which the plaintiffs alleged they had a three fourth share while only one-fourth belonged to the insolvent. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the transfer by the receiver was illegal and not binding on them. The relief was claimed in the following language:-

" (1) It be declared that the sale of the ancestral residential house of the plaintiffs by the Official receiver defendant 1 in favour of Babu Lal father of defendant 2 is illegal, without authority land not binding on the plaintiffs or on their threefourth share in the said house and therefore no right, title or interest in the said house or at least in the plaintiffs share did pass to defendant 2. "

The Stamp Inspector, it appears, reported that ad valorem court-fee was payable and that a fee of rs. 165/10/- was chargeable on the plaint and that there was a deficiency of Rs. 146/14/ -. The learned Civil Judge, Agra, did not accept this report. He held that the precise language in which the relief had been couched was material and that the court fee paid was sufficient.

( 3 ) IN this revision learned counsel for the State has urged that Section 7 (IV-A) (2), Court Fees act was, applicable and that ad valorem court-fee should be held to be paid. Reliance was placed on a decision by Hon. Malik, J, (as he then was) in -- kamta Nath v. Chiranji Lal reported in, air 1944 All 271 (A ). In that case the plaintiffs father had become an insolvent when the plaintiff was a minor and the receiver appointed had taken possession of certain properties as belonging to the plaintiffs father and wanted to sell the same. A suit had been brought on behalf of the plaintiff under the guardianship of his uncle for a declaration that the share of the plaintiff was not saleable by the receiver in insolvency proceedings. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal to this Court the -appeal was partly successful and this Court held that the village property was saleable and dismissed the plaintiffs suit, with respect to that property. On attaining majority the plaintiff filed another suit on the allegation that his guardian was grossly negligent in the earlier litigation and he prayed for a declaration that a one-sixth share of the village property belonging to the plaintiff along with his father was not liable to be sold in the insolvency proceedings against his father. The plaintiff did not claim any other relief but added a prayer to the effect that the plaintiff be granted such other relief which might be properly granted to him under the circumstances of the case. On a report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps ad valorem court-fee was ordered. The learned judge deciding the case was of opinion that by merely putting this relief in vague words the plaintiff could not be said to be not claiming the relief which was so obviously claimed by him in the case. He was a party to the earlier litigation and the Court took the view that it was necessary for him to get that decree set aside or avoided before getting the consequential relief sought by him. That case is materially different from the case now before me. In this case the plaintiffs were no parties to the insolvency proceedings. It is not contended that the father became an insolvent as representing the family and if the properties of the father alone were sold by the Official Receiver it cannot be assumed that the sale also purported to convey the properties of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed not the avoidance of, the sale toy the receiver of the property which belonged to their insolvent father. What they wanted was a decl