Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.12 dated September 15, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.12 of 2011 thereby directing the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fees on the valuation of the property mentioned in the alleged deed of gift.

The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid title suit for a decree of declaration that the alleged gift deed bearing No.2423 of 2010 is not acted upon and binding upon the plaintiff, a decree of declaration that the alleged deed of gift is prepared fraudulently and by practising fraud upon the plaintiff, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 not to enter into the suit property and/or physical possession and not to disturb the plaintiff in the suit property and/or not to cause wastage or damage of the suit property and/or not to change the nature and character of the suit property and other consequential reliefs.

The defendants are contesting the said suit and they filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the suit has not been properly valued at the time of institution and as such, the plaintiff should be directed to pay the ad valorem court fees on the valuation as made in the deed of gift. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

Upon hearing the learned Counselfor the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the deed of gift in question is the subject matter of the suit and the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff / petitioner herein are over the said deed of gift challenging that the deed was not acted upon and binding upon the plaintiff and that the same was obtained by practising fraud upon the plaintiff. The valuation of the deed of gift has been made to the tune of the Rs.19,78,640/-.

Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that since this is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, according to the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, when a suit is for declaration and consequential relief, such as, injunction, Court fees are payable according to the amount at which the reliefs sought for is valued in the plaint, i.e., the own declaration of the plaintiff as has been done in the case.

In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions of Paresh Chandra Nath v. Naresh Chandra Nath & ors. reported in 2006(1) CHN 526 and submitted that when a suit is for declaration simpliciter and the relief for setting aside the deed is consequential, the suit is not required to be valued on valuation of the property. He has also relied on the decision of Suresh & ors. v. Chand & ors. reported in AIR 2007 Allahabad 113 and thus, he has submitted that when the suit relates to declaration to be half owners of property in question on the basis of a registered will left by their mother and the second relief was for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant in respect of their alleged share of the property, the suit was not for cancellation of an instrument securing money and other property having a market value. So, the provisions of Section 7(iv)(A) as applicable in Uttar Pradesh or Article 17(iii) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, would not be applicable. Section 7(iv)(a) would be applicable inasmuch as the provision applies to suit filed for obtaining declaratory decree with consequential relief.

On the other hand, Mr. Joy Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, has contended that in consideration of the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff, the claim by the petitioner is virtually for cancellation of the deed of gift in question and other reliefs. Under such circumstances, according to him, the provisions of Section 7(i