JUDGMENT

1. These two cases have been put up before us because of the report that there are deficiencies in the amounts of the court-fees paid in the Court below. In First Appeal No. 115 of 1932 the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was in the following terms:

It may be declared that the properties in suit are waqf-alal-aulad and are not attachable and salable for satisfaction of the debt due by defendant 1 to defendants 4 to 19.

2. In First Appeal No.l66 of 1932 the relief claimed was:

It may be declared that the property in suit is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and is not fit for attachment and sale in satisfaction of a decree in favour of the respondent against the pro forma defendant.

3. In both the suits the plaintiffs paid only Rs. 10 as court-fee for a declaratory ralief. The question is whether the two sums of Rs. 10 paid in the two cases are sufficient. It seems to us that where the relief sought consists of two parts which are such that the first is the foundation for the second and the second part is a necessary consequence of the granting of the first part then the two can be taken together as really constituting one relief which is quite enough for the purpose of dec