The main and substantive relief in a suit for declaration should determine the requirement for ad valorem court-fees, and the consequential relief should be ancillary thereto.

1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 15-12-2004 whereby an application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Code") on account of insufficient court-fees affixed in a suit for declaration was dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the suit land and the gift deeds dated 21-5-1977 and 25-5-1977 are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. The suit has been valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- though it is alleged that the value of the land in question was not less than Rs. 10 crores. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be in joint possession and sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land.

3. The defendants moved an application for directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court-fee since the challenge in the suit is to the gift deeds. Learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiffs have sought declaration being coparceners in the joint Hindu family property and the challenge to the gift deeds is ancillary and, therefore, the Full Bench judgment of this Court, referred to by learned counsel for the defendants, reported as Niranjan Kaur V/s. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 Pun LJ 423 was found to be not applicable to the fact of the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Himanshu V/s. Smt. Kailash Rani, 2004 (3) Pun LR 513 : (AIR 2004 P&H 207); M/s. Iron Master (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Punjab National Bank, 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 190 (P and H); Ranjit Singh V/s. Balkar Singh, 2001 (2) Civil Court Cases 45 (P and H); Om Parkash V/s. Indrawati, 2002 (2) Pun LR 853 : (AIR 2002 P&H 267); Bagrawat V/s. Mehar Chand, 2001 (4) Rec Civil R 94 (P and H) and Jagdish V/s. Jagat Pal, 2002 Pun LJ 268 apart from the judgment in Niranjan Kaur s case (supra) to contend that since the challenge is to the gift deeds in the suit, ad valorem court-fee is required to be affixed.

5. However, I am unable to agree with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived in law. The judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur s case (supra) is not being read correctly by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Full Bench was seized of a case where the plaintiff, who was a party to a document, filed a suit for cancellation of a registered document and also sought possession as a consequential relief thereof. It was found that in order to bring the case under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), the main and substantive relief should be that of declaration and the consequential relief should be ancillary thereto. If no consequential relief is claimed or could be claimed in the suit, then Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act will not be attracted. In a suit to obtain declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed, sub-clause (iii) of Article 17 of Schedule II of the Act shall be applicable. The Full Bench found that the suit was virtually for the cancellation of the sale deeds and the plaintiff cannot obtain possession unless such decree is cancelled by a decree of the Court. Thus, it was a suit for declaration for cancellation of the sale deed and possession as a consequential relief thereof. Thus, where consequential relief of possession cannot be granted without cancellation of the document, those cases alone will attract ad valorem court-fees. Still further, the said principle would not be applicable in respect of the suit for declaration by a son or a member of the coparcenary under Hindu Law. The Full Bench itself found that such suits would be on a different footing. In such suits, the m