DWIVEDI, J. : Smt. Bishun Shri instituted a suit against Smt. Suraj Mukhi and others in respect of the estate of one Ganga Prasad. The plaintiff alleged that she was the daughter of the deceased. Smt. Suraj Mukhi is, it is admitted, the widow of the deceased. Ganga Prasad died in December 1939. Smt. Suraj Mukhi and the other defendants claimed title to the estate of Ganga Prasad on the strength of a will alleged to have been executed by him. The plaintiff instituted the suit as a presumptive reversioner to the estate of Ganga Prasad. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the court-fee paid was insufficient. The trial Court framed a specific issue on the question of sufficiency of the court-fee paid and answered it in the affirmative. On the merits, the suit was dismissed. Then the plaintiff filed all appeal in this Court. On the memorandum of appeal, as on the plaint she paid a court-fee of Rs. 18-12-0 only. The office reported that the court-fee paid on the two documents was insufficient. The total deficiency on both of them was Rs. 3,990.63 nP., according to the office. According to the office report the court-fee is to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of S. 7(iv-A) of the Court-fees Act as amended in this State. The plaintiff contested the report, and the matter was placed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench, and hence the case is now before us.

2. We shall first find out what is the true nature and character of the relief claimed in the suit and in the appeal and then decide whether the true nature and character of the suit and the appeal brings them within the grip of S. 7(iv-A).

3. On the death of Ganga Prasad the plaintiff was not immediately entitled to inherit his estate. In the absence of the alleged will the estate would have devolved upon his widow, Smt. Suraj Mukhi. The plaintiff is only a presumptive reversioner. On the death of Smt. Suraj Mukhi she may succeed to the estate of Ganga Prasad only if she were to happen to be the immediate reversioner. Accordingly it cannot be said that she is claiming the inheritance in this case. She has challenged the genuineness of the will in the plaint. She has alleged that Ganga Prasad was unconscious on the date of the execution of the alleged will. He could not have executed the will. The will was fictitious. In Para. 7 of the plaint it is alleged that Smt Suraj Mukhi, the first defendant, was an inexperienced and stupid woman and was under the influence of other defendants. All the defendants combined to get "executed a fictitious and fraudulent will on behalf of Ganga Prasad." In Para. 15 of the plaint it is said that the first defendant "has only life interest. On account of forged and fictitious will, the plaintiff is suffering a heavy loss, hence arose the necessity to sue". In Para. 16 the cause of action is alleged to have arisen in 1949 "when the plaintiff came to know about the fictitious and fraudulent steps mentioned in previous Paras Nos. 6 to 15." The plaintiff claimed three reliefs :-

(1) A declaration to the effect ''that the will of the defendants is quite fictitious and fraudulent and it has no effect on the property given below left by Ganga Prasad.";

(2) The costs of the suit;

(3) Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled -

4. In the memorandum of appeal ground No. 6 is that the alleged will was brought in the existence by fraud in collusion and for the benefit of the defendants. Ground No. 9 is that the alleged will was fictitious and forged. It is evident from the allegations in the plaint and the grounds in the memorandum of appeal that the plaintiff has challenged the alleged will, inter alia, on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently. Indeed she wants a declaration to the effect that the will was fraudulent In other words, the will is to adjudged void or voidable. This is necessarily involved in the first relief. So in its nature and character the sui