Cornish, J.

1. This Revision Petition raises the question whether court-fee on a plaint is governed by Article 17-A of Schedule II or by Section 7 (IV-A) of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs paid court-fee in accordance with Article 17-A. The lower Court has held that the fee must be paid in accordance with Section 7 (IV-A) which means an additional sum of Rs. 300 odd. Now the principle to be followed in determining the question of proper court-fee is that the substance of the relief claimed and not the form and language of the plaint, must be looked at : The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Lakhanna (1932) 64 M.L.J. 24. In the case before me the relief asked for is that a razinama decree passed against members of a tarwad, of which the present plaintiffs and defendants were members - the plaintiffs then being minors represented by defendants--may be declared null and void. The word declaration in Article 17-A has a different meaning from cancellation in Section 7(IV-A) as has been pointed out by Anantakrishna Aiyar, J., in Venkatasiva Rao v. Satyanarayanamurty AIR1932Mad605 . That learned Judge there said:

A decree will have full force and binding effect between t