JUDGMENT : Knox, J.:— The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen, was instituted on a plaint in which the plaintiff prayed for two relief's first that the sale-deed, dated the 9th of March, 1896, might he declared null and void as against the plaintiff, and second, that the plaintiff's possession might he maintained over the property covered by the sale-deed, and if the plaintiffs were found to be out of possession, the prayer was that the defendant be dispossessed and the plaintiff be put in possession. The plaintiff valued the property at Rs. 1,299, and he stamped his plaint accordingly. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that the suit had been under-valued and the Court-fee paid was inadequate. An issue was framed on the question, and after an inquiry the Court found that the value of the land in dispute was Rs. 1,851. The Court then acting under the provisions of section 10 of the Court-Fees Act stayed the suit until the additional fee rendered necessary by the Court's finding on the value of the property was paid in. The additional fee was paid in within the time fixed by the Court. The Court then heard the suit on the merits, set aside the sale-deed and finding that the plaintiff was in possession, gave him a decree for maintenance of possession only. 2. The defendants appealed. They did not in the memorandum of appeal take any objection to the action of the Court in fixing a time for payment of the additional Court-fee. It appears, however, when the case was argued in appeal before the learned Judge, a verbal objection was taken that as the period of limitation has expired before the additional Court-fee-was paid in, the suit should have been held barred. The learned District Judge sustained this objection, and without going into the merits dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. For the respondent reliance is placed one the decisions of this Court in Jainti Prasad v. Bachu Singh : [1893] I.L.R., 15 All., 65, Balkaran Rai v. Gobind Nath Tiwari : [1890] I.L.R., 12 All., 129, and Durga Singh v. Bisheshar Dayal : [1902] I.L.R., 24 All., 218. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. For the respondent reliance is placed one the decisions of this Court in Jainti Prasad v. Bachu Singh : [1893] I.L.R., 15 All., 65, Balkaran Rai v. Gobind Nath Tiwari : [1890] I.L.R., 12 All., 129, and Durga Singh v. Bisheshar Dayal : [1902] I.L.R., 24 All., 218. This last mentioned case is in point, but it is to be noted that in that case the provisions of section 10, clause 2 of the Court-Fees Act (VII of 1870) were not referred to. I have consulted the learned Chief Justice, who was a party to this judgment, and have his authority for saying that had the attention of the bench been called to this section, the decision might have been different. The other two cases on which reliance has been placed are distinguishable from the present case in this respect that in one of them the plaint and in the other memorandum of appeal had not been admitted when the question of the proper Court-fee to be paid was raised. In the present case the question of the Court-fee to be paid was not raised until after the plaint had been admitted and registered. The Court-fee paid was adequate, having regard to the value stated in the plaint. It is clear that section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 10 of the Courts-fees Act have reference to different stages of a suit. In this view I find the Madras High Court agreeing, vide Valia Kesava Vadhyar v. Suppannair : [1880] I.L.R., 2 Mad., 308. There is 110 suggestion here that the plaintiff fraudulently under-valued the property which he was claiming. A plaintiff may make bona fide mistake as to the value of the property which he claims, and it would in my opinion be repugnant to justice to hold, that, if after an enquiry, which may be a lengthy one and which may not be finished in time for him to pay in the additional Court-fee within the period of limitation the Court-fee paid were found insufficient, his suit should be barred. It seems to me that it was to meet a case like this that section of the Court-Fees Act was enacted. In my opinion the learned Judge was wrong in the view he took. I allow this appeal and remand the case for decision on the merits. It seems to me that it was to meet a case like this that section of the Court-Fees Act was enacted. In my opinion the learned Judge was wrong in the view he took. I allow this appeal and remand the case for decision on the merits. Aikman, J.:— I agree in what has been said by the learned Acting Chief Justice. But I would also rest my opinion on another ground. The plaintiff asked for a declaratory decree and in the alternative for a decree for possession. It has been held by this Court that it is open to a plaintiff to ask in the same suit for two such relief's. It is quite clear that when two reliefs are asked for, each may be governed by a different period of limitation. So far as the first relief, viz., for a declaratory decree was concerned, the plaint was adequately stamped. But it was not sufficiently stamped to cover the second alternative relief, viz., a decree for possession. The deficient Court-fee on the claim for possession was made good well within the period of limitation fixed for a suit for possession. This in my view is another reason why the order of the lower appellate Court cannot be supported. I concur in thinking that the appeal should be allowed. By The Court:— The order of the Court is that the appeal be allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court be set aside and the case be remanded with directions to the lower appellate Court to re-admit the appeal under its original number in the register and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the result.