K.K. Lahoti, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred following two questions for the consideration of the Full Bench:

(1) Whether ad valorem Court fee is not payable when the Plaintiff/Plaintiffs make an allegation that the instrument is void and hence, not binding upon him/them ?

(2) Whether the decision rendered in Narayan Singh (supra), lays down the law correctly that the Plaintiff, a party to the instrument, is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as he has made an allegation that the instrument is void ?

2. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to facts of the case.

(A) In Writ Petition No. 14679/06, the facts are as under:

(i) Respondent No. 1 Awadh Narayan filed a suit before the District Judge, Katni bearing No. 6-A/2005 for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was valued at Rs. 27,89,911/- and Court fee of Rs. 540/- was paid. In the relief clause, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that he be declared to be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 14,80,000/- as the detained salary from the Defendant No. 1. He also claimed a relief that the agreement dated 26-6-2000, which was executed for an amount of Rs. 3,45,000/-, be declared as null and void.

(ii) The Petitioners/Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that Plaintiff had not paid requisite Court-fee regard being had to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as claimed by him. The application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that Respondent/Plaintiff was free to value the suit for declaration at the amount by paying fixed Court-fee Rs. 500/-. The Trial Court assigned the reason that the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the agreement dated 26-6-2000 be declared as void as it was executed practising misrepresentation and fraud on him. The Trial Court found that the Plaintiff had challenged the agreement as a forged document, he was not required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the whole amount in view of the decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Smt. Shahista Qureshi v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2003 (1) M.P.H.T. 184.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Defendants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) Before this Division Bench, an argument was advanced that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short 'Court Fees Act') provides to obtain a declaratory decree or order where a consequential relief is prayed and Section 7(iv)(d) provides for Court-fee for a relief of injunction. The Petitioners also invited attention of the Court to Article 17, Schedule II of the Court Fees Act which provides in clause (iii) for fixed Court-fee to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. Referring aforesaid provision, it was stated by the Defendants/Petitioners that where consequential relief is prayed, the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) and (d) would apply and ad valorem Court-fee is payable on the plaint.

(iv) Per contra, Respondent/Plaintiff supported the order on the basis of the reasoning given by the Trial Court that the agreement was sought to be declared as void, so no ad valorem Court fee was required and fixed Court fee was rightly paid by the Plaintiff.

The Trial Court rejected the application by holding that the suit was properly valued and the fixed Court fee was rightly paid.

(B) (i) In Writ Petition No. 7582/2005, Plaintiff's Chhotelal, Buddhsen and Ramnaresh filed a suit against their real brother Bala Prasad in respect of suit lands claiming as an ancestral property. A partition among the brothers took place in the year 1983 and as per partition, mutation in revenue record was carried out recording name of each share holders as per partition. At the time of the partition, mother of parties Mst. Hansi was alive who was entitled for 1/5th share but it was resolved by all the four brothers that she would be maintained severally and