1. The plaintiffs who are the petitioners in this case filed a suit for declaration of their title and possession in respect of the disputed property. It was stated in the plaint that one Most. Lakhpatia Devi who had no interest in the disputed property had executed a sale deed and that the same was not binding on the plaintiffs. The court below took the view that ad valorem court-fee would be payable. The petitioners challenge that ORDER :in revision.

2. The claim of the plaintiffs, whether right or wrong is that the plaintiffs have title over the suit property and that they are in possession of the same. They do not seek for cancellation of the deed. They say that so far as they are Concerned, it is of no legal effect or consequence. In this situation, the distinction brought about in (1) Ramautar Sao V. Ram Gobind Sao (A.I.R. 1942 Patna, 60) is clearly applicable between a deed which has to be avoided as opposed to a deed which is void or of no legal consequence so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. In this view of the matter, the ORDER :of the court below directing payment of ad valorem court fee is set aside. There will be no ORDER :as to costs

Application allowed.