( 1. ) THE applicants-plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22nd February, 1983 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, raipur in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 81 requiring them to pay deficit court-fees have approached this Court by filing the present revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2. ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and title of the disputed property and paid court-fees of Rs. 30 for the relief of declaration and the requisite court-fees for relief of possession. Their case, as contained in the plaint was that the land originally belonged to one Jagannath who died on 22-5-1981. Being widow and daughter of the deceased Jagannath applicants-plaintiffs claim to succeed to the aforesaid land. They alleged that jagannath was ailing since last several years and was otherwise old, infirm and illiterate person. It is alleged that the non-applicants mother acting on behalf of the applicants got a sale-deed executed regarding the suit land and house from deceased Jagannath for a sum of Rs. 32,000 after making a fraudulent representation that such a course of action was required to properly manage the property. It was further alleged that the said Shri jagannath was not paid any consideration for the aforesaid sale. Later on, when the deceased Jagannath learnt of the fraudulent activities he requested the non-applicants parents to get the sale-deed cancelled. They also alleged that the said sale was effected by fraud and misrepresentation and hence was void. The applicants did not seek any relief of cancellation of sale-deed but prayed for a declaration that it was void and ineffective.

( 3. ) THE non-applicants-defendants raised an objection that the suit was not properly valued for court-fees inasmuch as no court-fees had been paid for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed. It was also submitted that the plaint has been very cleverly worded so that though the main relief is the relief of cancellation of sale-deed it seeks only the relief of declaration. The trial Court has upheld the objection and hence the present revision. In Santoshchandra v. Smt. Gyansundarbai, 1970 MPLJ 363. a Full Bench of this Court considered the requirement of payment of court-fees and reiterated its earlier view in Dattaji Parasharamji Patil v. Mst. Bliagirathi ILR 1939 Nag 373. by clearly stating

"that in a suit where the declaration prayed for, if given, involves the granting of consequential relief, such as the cancellation of the document or the avoidance of a decree, the plaintiff will be deemed to have prayed for the consequential relief and the suit will fall under section 7 (iv) (c) of the court Fees Act and will not be governed by Article I7 (iii) of Schedule II. "

The law on the subject has been summarized by the Full Bench as under :-"thus, all these cases lay down the proposition that where it is necessary for a plaintiff to avoid an agreement or a decree or a liability imposed, it is necessary for him to avoid that and unless he seeks the relief of having that decree, agreement, document or liability set aside, he is not entitled to a declaration simplicitor. In such cases the question of court-fees has to be determined under section 7 (iv) (c) of the act. However, where a plaintiff is not a party to such a decree, agreement, instrument or liability, and he cannot be deemed to be a representative in interest of the person who is bound by that decree, agreement, instrument or liability, he can sue for a declaration simpliciter provided he is also in possession of the property. The matter may be different if he is not in possession of the property. In that event, the proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act might be a bar to the tenability of a suit framed for the relief of declaration simpliciter. But, that would be a different aspect. All the same, if the plaintiff is not bound by that decree or agreement or liability and if he is not required to have it set aside, he can claim