Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the plaintiff petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.8.2016 passed by District Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court') in Civil Suit titled as Laxmi Narain & Anr. v. Ram Swaroop & Ors., whereby the learned trial Court has directed the plaintiff-petitioners to pay ad-valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed dated 26.4.2014.

3. The material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Tonk to declare the sale deed dated 26.4.2014 executed by the defendant-respondents No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant-respondent No.4, to be null and void and for permanent injunction. After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 11.8.2016. Being aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff-petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has completely overlooked the provisions of Section 7 of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and illegally held that the plaintiffs have to pay the ad-valorem court fees on the sale consideration recited in the sale deed. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court has misconstrued the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, which is not applicable on the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly the plaintiff-petitioners are not party to the sale deed, therefore, they are not liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration recited in the sale deed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. reported in 2010 IV AD (S.C.) 374.

5. From perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the plaintiff petitioners have filed the suit against the defendant-respondents for the relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 on 26.4.2014 with regard to the agricultural land in dispute, is null and void and for permanent injunction. It emerges that the plaintiff-petitioners are not party to the alleged sale deed and the property sold through the sale deed is agricultural land. Relevant provisions of Sections 7, 24 & 38 of the Act are as under :

"7. Determination of market value:- (1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.

(2) The market value of land in suits falling under clauses (a) and (b) of section 24 or under clauses (a) of section 26 or under section 28 or under section 29 or under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 35 or under section 36 or under section 44 shall be deemed to be--

(a) where rent in respect of such land has been settled, twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement, and

(b) where rent in respect of such land has not been settled, twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement for similar land in the neighbourhood.

24. Suits for declaration:- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under section 25,--

(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of twenty rupees;

(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-hal