Honble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal arises out of the order dated 12th February, 2009 passed by the concerned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar directing the plaintiffs/appellants to deposit the ad valorem Court fees in connection with the suit in which the reliefs have been claimed by them in the nature of declaration and injunction.

2. Apart from the incidental reliefs the main reliefs of the suit, as stated in the supplementary affidavit of the appellants, are as follows :

“(i) Relief of declaration to declare the will deed dated 15/19.2.2001 is a void document.

(ii) Relief of permanent injunction that the defendant-respondent 1st set and his servants• and agents be restrained from interfering in the right and possession of the plaintiffs through force and further the defendant-respondent 1st set be restrained from alienating the said property in any other manner."

3. Firstly, the appellants wanted to take advantage of an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17th March, 2009 by saying that at one point of time the appeal was heard by a Division Bench, therefore, the same is required to be heard by the same Bench but when we find from the record that on several occasions plaintiffs/appellants obtained extension of interim order from this Bench without making any comment on it, the appellants switched over the submission on merit by saying that they wanted to clarify the position.

4. Mr. M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel, has contended at first that the respondents/defendants are only delaying the cause before the Court below. In earlier occasion by an order dated 28th April, 2008 this Bench held that the suit will be heard expeditiously. Time was granted to file written statement. Time was also granted to complete the discovery and inspection with regard to relevant documents. A special direction was given for the purpose of day to day hearing without granting unnecessary adjournments. Even from such order the respondents/appellants preferred Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed on 1st August, 2008. Presently the written statement has been filed. Issues are framed. One of the issues is with regard to Court fees and suit valuation. No objection was raised by the plaintiffs/appellants in hearing the preliminary issue independently before hearing other issues.

5. Mr. Shekhar has further contended that all the properties immovable, movable and business are lying with the respondents/defendants. Therefore, unless they get the appropriate valuation of such properties, particularly movables and business, which are absolutely unknown, they are not in a position to make the valuation of the suit for fixing the ad valorem Court fees. He has further contended that as per ratio of the three Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 87, State of U.P. v. Ramkrishan Burman and others, a decree for declaration of title to money or other property is not “a decree for money or other property”. The expression in Section 7 (iv-A)(U.P.) means only a decree for recovery of money or other property. It does not include a decree concerning title to money.

6. It is relevant to mention hereunder that during the pendency of the present appeal, another appeal being First Appeal From Order No. 1480 of 2009, Smt. Rajni Swami v. Smt. Shakuntala Sharma, this Bench delivered a judgment on 28th May, 2009 in the similar circumstances holding that the ad valorem Court fees is to be given in respect of such type of claim. Sri Shekhar has stated that even in the said judgment of Smt. Rajni Swami (supra) was referred. It is true to say that not only that judgment but various other judgments are considered and the Court came to the following conclusion :

"We have considered the law. It is our duty to fit the law into the fact to come to a definite finding. There is a big gap between the declaration simplicitor and relief in the garb of declaration. If a person