( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellant, a minor, filed, a suit, through his next friend Durga vinod Singh, for a declaration that the sale-deed, dated 28-8-1959, executed by his eldest brother, Gopal Singh (respondent No. 1) as the karta of the joint Family, consisting of himself and his brothers, viz. , Raj Bahadur Singh and the minor plaintiff Baldeo Singh, was void, as it was not executed for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. It was also averred in the plaint that the suit property in respect of which the declaration was sought was in possession of tenants, who had not yet attorned to the vendees; nor had the defendants-vendees been able to obtain possession of the suit property from the tenants in any other way. It was also pleaded, in the alternative, that as the plaintiff was a minor and as the permission of the Court had not been obtained in accordance with the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the sale-deed in question was void in any case to the extent of the share of the plaintiff-appellant. In the result, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants Nos. 4 and 5, the alienees, inter alia, on the ground that the plaint was insufficiently stamped, as the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the plaint as framed.

( 3 ) THE trial Court, by its order dated the 28th of March 1960, held that the court-fee was payable under Article 17 (iii), Schedule II of the Court-fees Act and not under Section 7 (iv) (c), because the suit was not for the cancellation of the sale-deed but only for a declaration simpliciter that the sale-deed was void or partly void to the extent of the share of the plaintiff. It relied on the observations in ratansingh v. Raghurajsingh, ILR (1945) Nag 975: (AIR 1946 Nag 30) to the effect that "court-fee is payable on the claims as framed in the plaint and not on the claim as it ought to be framed". After the aforesaid finding, the parties went to trial. The learned Additional District Judge, by his judgment under appeal, held that the sale-deed executed by Gopal Singh as the Karta of the joint family, of which the plaintiff-appellant was a member, was neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate. He, therefore, held that the minor plaintiffs share in the suit property could not have been sold by Gopal Singh and that the transfer to the extent of his share was void. He, however, in spite of the aforesaid finding, dismissed the suit because the plaintiff had not prayed for a consequential relief which, in the opinion of the trial court, it was necessary for him to have claimed in view of the provisions of section 42 of the old Specific Relief Act. It would be observed that though the plaintiff had claimed that the sale in question being neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate was void in its entirety because he was governed by the Benaras School of Mitakshara Laws administered in the Uttar Pradesh where, in such circumstances, the alienation is liable to be set aside wholly, the trial Court was inclined to the view, subject of course to its non-maintainability because of the bar created by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, that the sale was void only to the extent of the plaintiff's share.

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed an appeal in this Court praying, inter alia, that the Court below should have held that the parties being governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law as administered in the uttar Pradesh, the entire sale and not only the plaintiffs share in it was void and not binding on the joint family. In view of the aforesaid prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents contended as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal that the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal as also on the plaint was improper and that the plaintiff-appellant should be required to pay ad v