Arun Mishra, J. -- 1. Writ petition has been filed as against order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the trial Court rejecting an application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint on the ground that trial Court was not having pecuniary jurisdiction as well as adequate court fees was not paid.

2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. Prayer has also been made to declare the sale deed dated 20th September, 2007 as null and void. Prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction has also been made.

3. Plaintiff has averrd that plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of the land in question. Her ago is 100 years, she is disabled also. Plaintiff No.2 is residing with her and looking after agricultural operation. Plaintiff wanted to obtain the loan under the Kisan Credit Scheme for improving fertility of the land. She was assured by the defendant that performing formalities, she would have to sign certain documents. Under the guise of processing the papers of ~san Credit Scheme, a sale deed was got executed which she has never executed. She has lodged objection on coming to know of the execution of sale deed and also lodged report at P.S., Majhgawan. She has never sold the land and fraud was played. There was no question of receipt of consideration.

4. In the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, it was submitted that suit has not been properly valued, ad valorem Court fees was required to be paid on consideration mentioned in the sale deed of Rs. 2,29,000. Trial Court has rejected the application, hence the petition.

5. Shri RP. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has submitted that it is necessary to seek consequential relief of cancellation of sale deed as the plaintiff is a party to the document, thus, she was bound to make the payment of ad valorem court fees. He has referred to certain decisions to be referred later.

6. Shri Pushpraj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the impugned order.

7. The main question for consideration is whether ad valorem court fees is required to be paid. Document is shown to be void not voidable. Plaintiff has averred that she was never told about the sale deed which was been obtained by playing fraud. She never intended to execute the sale deed, she wanted to obtain the loan and taking the advantage of her advanced age and disability, sale deed was obtained. No consideration was paid. The averments made in the plaint indicate that document is shown to be void not voidable. There is difference in incident of payment of court fees in case document is voidable at the instance of executant ad valorem court fees is required to be paid, not in the case of void document in such cases injunction which has been prayed flows ftom the relief of declaration. In case of void document, it is not necessary to seek the relief of cancellation of document itself, it is only in the cases of voidable documents, it is necessary to claim such a relief. This question was considered by this Court in Pratap and another v. Punia Bai and others, 1976 JLJ 703 thus:-

"5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied mainly on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Santoshchandra and other v. Gyansunder Bai, 1970 MPLJ 363 (FB). It was held in that case that where it is necessary for a plaintiff to avoid an agreement or a decree or a liability imposed, he must seek the relief of having that decree, agreement, instrwnent of liability set aside and he is not entitled to a declaration simpliciter in such cases. This decision was followed in Sunderbai v. Manohar Singh Yadav, 1974 JLJ Short Note, 75. In that case plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration and for permanent injunction alleging that the sale deed in question was got executed by her by playing fraud. The plaintiff was held liable to pay an ad valorem Court fees under section 7 (c) of the court fees Act. F