( 1 ) THE present Civil Revision Application is filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the original plaintiffs mainly against the State of Gujarat, respondent No. 5, obviously because the dispute is about the payment of Court fee on the relief prayed. The other parties, namely, the rest of the defendants are not necessary in deciding the question in issue, hence they are rightly deleted vide order dated 15th of February, 1994.

( 2 ) THE petitioners-plaintiffs have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondal and in the said suit there were four defendants. At the time of the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs have, for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, valued the suit at Rs. 300. 00 and have paid the court fee of Rs. 30. 00. If one refers to the relief clause in Para 9 of the plaint, plaintiffs have by Para 9 (1), inter alia, prayed that the defendants have by registered document, registered at No. 56, executed a gift deed and since the properties in question are ancestral joint Undivided Hindu family properties, such gift deed is for the reasons stated in the plaint obtained by fraud and is not binding as it is executed in bad faith under pressure and coercion and the same was, therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs and, therefore, it should be set aside as null and void. By Para 9 (2), it was inter alia prayed that it should be declared that the immovable property which was covered by the gift deed was one in which the plaintiffs have interest and their share in such property be set apart.

( 3 ) IT may be noted at this stage that in the plaint, the defendant No. 1 is the father and defendant No. 4 is the son, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the wife and son of defendant No. 4 and obviously the gift deed in question is in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and, therefore, on going through the entire plaint as well as the relief clause, their main challenge is to the legality and validity of the gift deed allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

( 4 ) THE suit was presented in the Court on 20th September, 1988 and on 17th june, 1989, it resulted into compromise as consent terms were filed in the Court and the suit was disposed of in terms of the consent terms.

( 5 ) IT is thereafter that on 8th of August, 1989, the Inspecting Officer of the Court fees on examination of the plaint and more particularly the relief clause, submitted the report under S. 12 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 to the effect that the plaintiffs have filed the suit to set aside the registered gift deed dated 13th of January, 1986 by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 of the properties which were alleged to be the ancestral property. The defendant No. 1 is admittedly the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. They have also applied for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of the said properties. In his report he found that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was thus to set aside the gift deed dated 13th of January, 1986. Under the gift deed, the property was given by the father of the plaintiffs to the wife and son of defendant No. 4 and, therefore, the plaintiffs were required to pay full ad valorem court fees on the value of such alienation. He found that the plaintiffs have mentioned the value of the properties covered by the gift deed from the gift deed itself. The said value was stated to be Rs. 49,000. 00. The plaintiffs were, therefore, liable to pay full Court fees of Rs. 2,500. 00 as against which they have only paid Court fees of Rs. 30. 00. The deficit Court fees was found to be Rs. 2,470. 00 which the plaintiffs were called upon to pay. He also noted that the plaintiffs have valued the suit under S. 6 (iv) (j) of the said Act. He found that the provision under S. 6 (iv) (j) of the Bom