The substance of the relief sought for and not the form will be determinative of the valuation and payment of court fee.

Animadverting upon the order dated 110. 2007 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Pondicherry, in I.A.No.418 of 2004 in O.S.No.157 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

The husband, namely P.Bakthavachalam filed the suit O.S.No.157 of 2003 as against his wife/first defendant B.Mohanasundari and three others. In addition to praying for various other reliefs, the plaintiff also has prayed for the relief of declaring that the Settlement Deed dated 24.07.2003 is null and void. The first defendant after entering appearance filed an I.A.No.418 of 2004 under Section 11(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1972 praying the Court to decide on the valuation and the adequacy of Court fee paid, whereupon the Court rendered its verdict on 110. 2007 to the effect that the Court fee should have been paid on the market value of the property referred to in the impugned settlement deed and not notionally in a sum of Rs.15,000/-by invoking Section 25(d) of the said Act. Animadverting upon such order, the plaintiff filed this revision petition on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the Court is expected to look into the averments in the plaint as well as the prayer and whereupon it has to see as to whether the reliefs are properly valued or not; but in this case, violating the well settled proposition of law, the lower Court assumed and presumed as though the prayer for declaration virtually amounts to seeking cancellation of the settlement deed and accordingly, the lower Court invoked Section 40(1) of the said Act, which is against law.

5. Despite printing the name, neither the counsel nor the second respondent has appeared.

6. In this factual matrix, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the common or garden principle of law that it is not actually the wordings in the plaint or the prayer in the plaint that would be the criteria to assess the valuation and Court fee. The Court has to see as to what actually are intended in the plaint and what would be the direct consequence of the relief claimed in the plaint. Here it is obvious and axiomatic that the husband clearly and categorically has come forward with the specific case that the wife managed to get the settlement deed executed from him. In other words, he pleads fraud and coercion etc. In such a case, it is clear that the plaintiff is a party to the impugned document and he cannot be simply heard to contend that he would be satisfied if a declaration is made to the effect that such settlement deed is null and void. By getting declared the deed as null and void, virtually the plaintiff would be getting the relief of settlement deed cancelled or nullified.

7. At this juncture, Section 40(1) of the said Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

"40. Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc.-(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be. if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed; if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property."

8. A bare perusal of it would clearly indicate that in matters of this nature, the Court fee should be paid based on the market value of the property covered by the impugned settlemen