JUDGMENT

This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Judge, Ernakulam against the finding on issue No.4 regarding court fee in O.S.No.521/2004. The suit is one for a declaration that Sale Deed No.101 of 2004 of the Sub Registry, Ernakulam, executed on 6.1.2004 by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the 4th defendant is not binding on the plaintiff company that the said sale deed is inoperative, fraudulent, null and void. There is also a prayer for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property items 1 to 10 from the 4th defendant. If prayer No.1 is allowed, naturally the 4th prayer also follows the suit. So the main relief claimed for is regarding the declaration of the document to be null and void. Unfortunately the plaintiffs have not chosen to state exactly under which provision they have filed the suit. I presume that it must be under Section 25(a) of the Court Fees Act because there is no prayer for consequential injunction. If a suit is filed under Section 25(a) then the court fee has to be paid as contemplated under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. What has happened in this case is that the plaintiffs have shown the market value in the document and have chal