P L D 1967 Dacca 164 (PLP)

HASAN, J.‑This Rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Dacca, directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court‑fees on a sum of Rs. 16,200 only. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the prayer being only for declaration, there was no justifica tion for the learned Subordinate Judge to direct payment of ad valorem court‑fee on the amount of Rs. 16,

200. In support of the above view reliance has been placed on the case of Daibakilal Basak v. Iqbal Ahmed Quarishi and another (P L D 1965 Dacca 439). By the Full Bench it was held that when the plaintiff claims to be in possession and there is only a prayer for declaration, the plaintiff cannot be asked to seek for any consequential relief nor can the plaintiff be directed to pay ad valorem court‑fee and that court‑fee is to be paid as the suit is framed by the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff has asserted in his plaint that the defendant No. 1 is living in the homestead, of course, it has been asserted that as a wife of the plaintiff. This assertion of the plaintiff has been denied by the defendant No. 1 contending inter alia that the plaintiff is a tenant under her and that she is the widow of late Gadai Haldar who died 40 years ago and she remained a widow all along thereafter and that after the death of her said husband, she became a prostitute and she registered herself as such in the Lohajang Police Station and that subsequently she moved to Dacca and resided at various places including Kabirajer Gali; Naba Rayer Ghali; Kumartuli, etc. It further seems from the plaint that the defendant No. 1 admittedly has made a gift in favour of the defendant No. 2 and that the defendant No. 2 never got any judicial possession thereof indirectly admitting defendant No. 2's illegal possession in the‑ gifted property, namely, a portion of the suit land. From the prayer portion it appears that the plaintiff has claimed the following declaration: (a) that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring his title to the property in the Schedule below and that the plaintiff is the real owner of the suit property and the defendant is a mere benamdar and (b) that a declaration may also be made that defendant No. 2 has got no right, title and interest in the suit property. It is contended on behalf of the defendant‑opposite‑parties that the prayer (b) is nothing but a consequential relief t9 the prayer (a) inasmuch as after getting the first declaration the plaintiff will be entitled to declaration (b) as a consequential relief thereto and in support he, has relied on the case of Khiri Chand Mahton v. Mst. Meghni (I L R 5 Pat. 496). In our opinion as the plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendants in the suit land and as the prayer (b) is not co extensive to that of prayer (a), and as the same is a consequent relief to prayer (a) the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court‑ fee. We accordingly hold that there is no substance in this Rule. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.‑I agree. S. Q. Rule discharged.