By the Court.—This First Appeal From Order filed under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 104 C.P.C. arises out of the proceedings from O.S. No. 1361 of 2007 and is directed against the order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Allahabad whereby the issue No. (5) in respect of the payment of Court fees has been decided against the plaintiff-appellants.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the defendant-respondents claiming the following relief :

1. A decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents and their servants, agents, family members not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and not to dispossess them or raise any construction and not transfer it in favour of third person.

2. A decree of declaration to declare the registered sale-deed dated 23.8.2006 executed by the power of attorney holder of plaintiff-appellants No. 1 to 13 in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 10 forcefully at gun point as void, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

3. The suit was valued at Rs. 1 crore. Plaintiffs paid separate Court fees. In respect of first relief, they paid maximum Court fees of Rs. 500/-. In respect of second relief of declaration, the plaintiffs paid Court fees of Rs. 200/-.

4. An objection was raised by the defendant-respondents in their written statement that the suit was undervalued and Court fees paid was insufficient and it should have been paid ad-valorem.

5. Trial Court found that the suit has been properly valued and the Court fees paid for the relief of injunction is sufficient. The said part of the order is not under challenge in the present appeal. However, in respect of relief seeking declaration, the trial Court found that the Court fees paid is insufficient and ad-valorem Court fees is payable in accordance with Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short the ‘Act’).

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the trial Court has erred in law in directing the Court fees payable in terms of Section 7(iv)(a) of the Act. It is further submitted that the relief claimed in the suit is only to declare the sale-deed void and no cancellation of the document was sought, hence, the ad-valorem Court fees was not payable and the plaintiffs are entitled to pay the fixed Court fees in accordance with the provisions Article 17 (iii) enumerated in Schedule II of the Act.

7. Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants submits that relief of declaration is simply a camouflage and in effect the plaintiffs are seeking cancellation of a registered sale-deed and thus, they are liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees. It is also submitted that though only a declaratory decree is sought for but a plain reading of the plaint reveals that true substantial and main relief amounts to adjudging the registered sale-deed as null and void and without doing so, declaratory decree sought for cannot be granted and therefor, Section 7(iv) is not attracted and the case falls within the four corners of Section 7(iv)(a) making the plaintiffs liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees.

8. We have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

9. The issue being raised is no longer res integra. In the case of Ajay Tiwari v. Hirday Ram Tiwari, 2006(7) ADJ 5 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court in reference to a registered sale-deed held that it is a document securing other other property within the meaning of Section 7(iv-A) of the Act and a suit for declaration of the sale-deed as null and void squarely falls within the four corners of Section 7(iv-A) and Article 17(iii) of Schedule-II which applies to suits not otherwise provided for in the Act does not come into play.

10. In the case of Her Highness Maharani Riwa Smt. Parveen Kumari v. Sangam Upnivesh Awas