Tej Shankar, J. -- 1. This revision petition has arisen out of an order dated 23.7.1997 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Vidisha.

2. The facts leading to the petition in short are that: plaintiff -- respondent No.) Mithuthu Lal filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that he was the resident of village Basuriya, Tehsil Gyaraspur, Distt, Vidisha and was aged 35 years. He had no son. He had two daughters. He kept his younger daughter Kranti Bai and son-in-law Mahendra Singh at his house for looking after his cultivation on account of his old age. They lived there for 15-16 years. He had certain lands detailed in para 2 of the plaint. His son-in-law Mahendra Singh was living with him, His son-in-law started quarrelling and had also beaten him for sometime. There was an enmity going on. Hence it was difficult for him to live in the village. Defendant No.1 started helping him. Defendants 2 to; 8 were friends of defendant No.1. He had faith on them. He had kept Bhu-Adhikar Pustika with defendant No.1. In May, 1994, defendant No.1 asked him to go to Vidisha to move an application after keeping all the documents of land. As he had full confidence over him, he agreed to go to Vidisha. He went along with defendants 1 and 2 and 4-6 others persons to Vidisha. Defendant No. 1 took his thumb impression on certain typed papers and took him to the Registrar and asked him to execute a Mukhtamama before the Registrar so that he may not have to go to Courts regularly. Relying upon defendant No.1, he put his thumb marks over the stamp papers in the office of the Registrar. On 14.8.94, his brother and daughter Kranti Bai went to him and told him that defendants 1 to 8 had sold his whole disputed land and executed the sale deed on 17.5.94, though he never sold the land. He was not in any need of selling the land. He did not obtain any consideration. The alleged document was without consideration and was the result of fraud. His daughter Kranti Bai gave copies of documents of so-called sale-deeds which she was keeping. He then went to Vidisha along with his brother Babu Lal and got the documents examined by a counsel. Then they came to know that sale-deeds were got executed for different sum in names of different persons as mentioned in para 7. Defendants 1 to 8 got fictitious sale-deeds executed fraudulently and got his thumb impression on the pretext of Mukhtarnama which were wholly fictitious and illegal. He, therefore, valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction on 20 times of the land revenue and paid Court-fee thereon.

3. The written statement was filed by defendants 3 to 8 and an application was moved by them purporting to be under Order 7 Rule 11 (b)(d) of CPC. It was alleged that the court-fee paid was insufficient Not only this, he filed a suit in a Court which had also no jurisdiction to entertain the suit The Court-fee ought to have been paid on the valuation of the sale-deeds. This application was disposed of by the Court below by the impugned order on 23.7.97 and was rejected, hence this petition by the defendants.

4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard on merits. At the initial stage, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had sought a relief of declaration, the suit ought to have been valued and court-fee paid ad valorem under Section 7(iv)(c) Court-fees Act because it involved the cancellation of the sale-deeds. In support of his contention he relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1970 JLJ 290 (Santoshchandra v. Gyansunder Bai); AIR (31) 1944 Patna 17 (Mt Rupia v. Bhatu Mahton) another Full Bench Decision of the Patna High Court and a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1937 SC 2384 (Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad).

5. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the contesting-respondent No. 1 that for determining the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, plain