In a suit for declaration that a deed of gift is void, the plaintiff is not obliged to sue for cancellation of the same. They can ignore the document and ask for the appropriate relief that they may be entitled to on that footing and pay the proper court-fee thereon without asking for cancellation of such document.

1. THE short point involved in this case is whether the suit should be valued according to the valuation as given by the plaintiff or whether the plaintiff is to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the property as stated in the Deed of Gift challenged in the suit.

2. THE plaintiff petitioners filed Title Suit No. 1634/87 in the III Bench of the learned Judge, City Civil Court of Calcutta against the defendant opposite party, Shri Madhusudan Das, the defendant no. 2 and several others for the following declarations: -

"a) Decree for a declaration that the Deed of Gift execution on March 31, 1986 by Madhusudan Das, the father of the plaintiffs in favour of, the defendant is nullity, the: same being void and the said document is liable to be cancelled and/or delivered up; decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from giving into effect and/or further effect and/or taking any steps in aid thereto enforcing the purported Deed of Gift dated 31st March, 1986; c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from interfering with and/or disturbing the plaintiffs' possession in respect of the scheduled property; d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from making any additions/ alterations and/or changes in or upon any portion of premises No. 22, Kailash Base Street, P. S. Amherst Street, Calcutta; e) Cost of the suit with full Advocate's fees; 0 Such other relief and/or reliefs as the learned Court may deem fit and proper."

The allegations of the plaintiff-petitioners in the plaint inter alia were, that the deed of gift purported to have been executed on March 31, 1986 by the said Madhusudan Das, the defendant no. 2 in he suit, who was the father of the plaintiff-petitioners as well as of the defendant no. 1 - opposite party, in favour of the defendant no. 1, was; a nullity and void inasmuch as the defendant no. 2 was suffering from melancholia and schizophrenia at the material time and he had no mental equilibrium and the defendant ho. 1 by exercising undue influence and coercion obtained the aforesaid gift from the defendant no. 1 in his favour. The suit was valued at Rs. 51/- for injunction under Section 7 (iv) (b) of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970. The defendant no. 1 - opposite party raised a preliminary objection regarding the valuation of the suit and the Court-fees paid on it and the said matter came up for hearing before the learned Judge, III Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, who by his order No. 20 dated 28th June, 1988, had inter alia, that the plaintiffs, in fact, wanted to set aside the disputed deed of gift made in favour of the defendant no. 1 by the defendant no. 2, under the garb of a declaration that the said deed was void, and as such the plaintiffs were to pay advalorem Court-fees on the valuation of the property as stated in the deed of gift and the learned Judge valued the suit at Rs.47,000/- and directed to pay the requisite court-fees within a stipulated time. Against the said order, the plaintiff-petitioners have moved this Hon'ble Court in revision and obtained the present civil order.

3. IT is argued on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioners that really speaking, the suit was for a declaration with a consequential relief and the suit was correctly valued by the plaintiffs under Section 4 (iv) (b) of the West Bengal Court-fees act, 1970, and the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioners referred to the decisions of several High Courts, namely, AIR 1975 Punjab and Harayana 316, AIR 1977 M.P. 108 and 10981 Calcutta 189 in support of his contentions.

4. THE learned Advocate for the Caveator opposite party, however, supported the impugned order relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court reported in AIR 1973 SC 2384. So far as the decision of the Punjab and Harayana High Court in the case of Chhota Singh vs. Jit Singh and Others (AIR 1975 Punjab and Harayana 316)is concerned, that was a case file by the