Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Invoking provision contained in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendants No. 1 & 2 petitioners herein have filed this revision calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 31.10.2013 by which their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 has been rejected by the trial Court.

2. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein filed a suit for declaration that sale deed dated 31.03.2012 & 25.07.2012 is null & void as that has been executed beyond their back and they have not executed power of attorney in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2 and thus the sale made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and further sale made by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 5 & 6 are null & void, and they also sought declaratory decree and perpetual injunction.

3. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC stating that as the plaintiffs are challenging the validity of sale deeds, they are required to pay ad velorem court fee, which the trial Court has rejected and against which, the instant revision has been preferred challenging the same.

4. Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs have sought cancellation of the sale deeds dated 31.03.2012 and 25.07.2012 and, therefore, they are required to pay ad velorem court fee. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 and in the matter of Satwinder Kaur v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 Punjab & Haryana 52 in support of his submissions.

5. Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs would submit that plaintiffs have only sought declaration of sale deeds dated 31.03.2012 & 25.07.2012 to be null & void as they are not party to the sale deeds and they are not in possession of the suit land and have not sought cancellation of the sale deeds. He placed reliance upon the order of this Court passed in the matter of Tarun Chandrakar v. Smt. Kumari Bai & others, Decided on 29.08.2016 passed in W.P. (227) No.229 of 2016 in support of his submissions.

6. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 to 7/subsequent purchaser would adopt the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of court below with utmost circumspection.

8. Court fee in the State of Chhattisgarh is governed by the provisions contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 6 of the Act provides that no document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the First or Second Schedule to this Act annexed shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of Justice, or shall be received or furnished by any public officer, unless the court fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Act requires payment of fixed fee to obtain a declaratory decree, where no consequential relief is prayed. However, where the suit is for declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fee therein is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, which states as under:-

"7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:-

***** **** *****

(iv) In suits.-

***** **** *****

for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.-(c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed.

***** ***** *****

according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal;

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

9. The interpretation regarding the provisions of the Court Fee Act in cases relating to immovable property for partition and for other related aspects was considere