JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The question raised by the petitioner by way of this writ petition is with regard to the applicability of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1961') in relation to the suit referred to by the petitioner seeking specific performance and for declaring sale-deed null and void and for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. On an application moved by the defendant, the trial court has directed the petitioner to pay court fees on the valuation of the sale-deed in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1961.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that as the main relief prayed for is for specific performance of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants, and the prayer for declaring the subsequent sale-deed as null and void is an ancillary relief, therefore, in terms of Section 6 (1) proviso, he is not required to pay court fee with regard to the ancillary relief. Section 6(1) of the Act of 1961 reads as under:

"Sec.6. Multifarious suits.- (1) In any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the relief:

Provided that, if a relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief."

3. It is his further submission that as he has not executed or party to the subsequent sale-deed executed between the respondents, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 2807, the court fee on the valuation of the saledeed executed between the respondents, is not required to be paid as he is not seeking prayer for cancellation of the sale-deed but he is only praying for declaring it null and void.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this court first rendered in SBCW Pet. No.13831/2016 (Laxminarayan and anr. vs. Ram Swaroop and ors.) decided on 20.7.2017, and another reported in 2012(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1460-Ramlal and ors. vs Bajrang Lal.

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents have placed reliance on two others judgments passed by Coordinate Bench reported in AIR 2015 (Raj.) 29-Ratan Devi vs Gawra Devi and ors. ; and 2017 (1) DNJ 337-Mahendra Singh Ranawat vs Bhagwati Devi and ors., to submit that the court fee is required to be paid where the petitioner claims for declaring sale-deed as null & void also.

6. The Addl. Advocate General who was asked to appear, has submitted that it is the nature of the plaint which is required to be considered for deciding whether essentially the suit filed is for cancellation of sale-deed or not. The counsel has relied on (2017) 11 SCC 852-J.Vasanthi and ors. vs N.Ramani Kanthammal and ors. wherein the judgment passed by Madras High Court in Chellakannu vs Kalanji has been quoted and the word "cancelled" has been considered to mean also for declaring it as null and void and thus it is his submission that even if his prayer is couched in the form of declaration that document is not valid and not binding, the relief in substance indirectly amounts to seeking cancellation of the sale-deed and, therefore, court fee is required to be paid on the valuation of the sale-deed in terms of Section 38 of the Act.

7. The counsel has also relied on one judgment passed by another Coordinate Bench of this court reported in 2008(2) DNJ 818-LRs of Surja Ram and ors. vs LRs of Asha Ram and ors.

8. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh and ors. (supra), the question that arises for consideration was as to what is the court fees payable in regard to the prayer for a declaration that the sale-deeds were void and not binding on the coparcener and for consequential relief of joint possession and injunction and the Apex Court held as under:

6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be