JUDGMENT Thomas C.J. and Ghulam Hasan, J. - This is a First Civil Appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a decree made in the name of defendant No. 1 against the plaintiffs passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri in Suit No. 7 of 1935, decided on the 19th September, 1935, is void and illegal. 2. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge of Sitapur by a judgment and decree dated the 9th December, 1936. 3. The defendant No. 1 who alone contested the suit, has filed the present appeal challenging the decree of the trial Court. 4. Mr. Hardhian Chandra, who appears for the appellant, states that under instructions from his client he does not press this appeal which may be dismissed. 5. Mr. Kedar Nath Tandon on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents states that he has received a letter from his clients instructing him not to appear in the case as the plaintiffs have come to terms with the appellant. 6. In these circumstances there is no other alternative for us but to pass an order that this appeal should fail and be dismissed but without costs. We order accordingly. 7. In connection with this appeal there is, however, a report by the Chief Inspector of Stamps United Provinces, to the effect that the plaintiffs and the defendant No, 1 should both be called Upon to pay a deficiency in court-fee. According' to the report the declaration asked for by the plaintiffs involved the setting aside of the decree and relieving the plaintiffs of the obligations arising thereunder and, therefore, involved a consequential relief. The plaintiffs are therefore, liable to pay en ad valorem court-fee under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs paid a court-fee of Rs. 10 in respect of the plaint and the defendant-appellant who filed the present appeal has paid Rs. 15 in respect of the memorandum to appeal on the ground that the relief asked for was a mere declaratory relief. It may be mentioned that the valuation of the suit, as also that of the appeal, is Rs. 35,000. The question for consideration before us is whether the court-fees paid in respect of the plaint and the memorandum of appeal are sufficient. It may be mentioned that the valuation of the suit, as also that of the appeal, is Rs. 35,000. The question for consideration before us is whether the court-fees paid in respect of the plaint and the memorandum of appeal are sufficient. We are of opinion that having regard to the relief claimed in the plaint, the plaintiffs were liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 35,000 under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and not the fixed declaratory fee as given in Article 17 (iii), Schedule II of the Act. Similarly the defendant was liable to pay the ad valorem court-fee on his memorandum of appeal. We are fortified in this conclusion by the following decisions of the late Court of the Judicial Commissioner and this Court- vide, 1. Sripal Singh v. Jagdish Narayan (1931) 24 O.C. 361; 2. AIR 1934 212 (Oudh) ; 3. Rup Rani v. Bital Das AIR 1938 Oudh 1 and 4. Bepin Singh v. Bhagwan Singh 1938 O.W.N. 889 : AIR 1938 Oudh 201. 8. It was held in AIR 1934 212 (Oudh) , that where the plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that a decree obtained against their father who was dead was not binding on them and that the joint family property which they had obtained by right of survivorship was not open to attachment in execution of the said decree, the consequential relief was implicit in the declaration asked for and that an ad valorem court-fee was payable on the suit. 9. According to the view which we have expressed the plaintiffs are liable to pay a deficiency of Rs. 1,025 in respect of the plaint and the defendant would have been liable to pay a deficiency of Rs. 1,292/8/-in respect of the memorandum of appeal. Since the appellant has not pressed his appeal, which in consequence has been ' dismissed, no question about calling upon him to pay- the deficiency in court fee can possibly arise. The plaintiffs, however, who have obtained a decree in their favour from the trial court, which decree has been upheld by us, are liable to pay the deficiency of Rs. 1,025/- in respect of their plaint. 10. Let the plaintiffs be directed by an issue of notice to deposit the deficiency in court-fee of Rs. The plaintiffs, however, who have obtained a decree in their favour from the trial court, which decree has been upheld by us, are liable to pay the deficiency of Rs. 1,025/- in respect of their plaint. 10. Let the plaintiffs be directed by an issue of notice to deposit the deficiency in court-fee of Rs. 1,025/- within two months from the receipt of notice, failing with the matter should be put for necessary order.