Ajit Singh, J.

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 28-4-2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2004 by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Rewa, whereby he has directed the Petitioners to pay ad-valorem court-fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 21-10-1998.

2. The Petitioners are Plaintiffs in the civil suit filed against the Respondents in the year 1999. In the civil suit, Bhuar Rai was Plaintiff No. 1 and after his death the name of his widow Sitrajia was substituted in the plaint in the year 2001. The plaint contains the relief that the sale deed dated 21-10-1998 executed by Plaintiff No. 1 be declared inoperative, void and illegal as his thumb impression was obtained by misrepresentation. Another relief sought is that Respondent No. 1 be permanently injuncted from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over the suit property. The sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 1,49,000/-. The Plaintiffs have paid Court-fee of Rs. 60/- for the relief of declaration and Rs. 30/- for the relief of permanent injunction i.e. total Rs. 90/-

3. The trial Court, after hearing the Petitioners, held that prayer relating to sale deed amounted to seeking its cancellation and, therefore, ad-valorem court-fee was payable on the sale consideration shown therein. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have filed the present petition.

4. It is argued on behalf of Petitioners that the suit was not for cancellation of sale deed and, therefore, the court-fee paid by them was proper. Relying upon the recent Full Bench judgment dated 8-9-2010 of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 14679/2006 (Sunil Radhelia v. Awadh Narayan Writ Petition No. 14679/2006) the Petitioners have argued that since an allegation has been made that the sale deed is void, ad-valorem court-fee is not payable. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh AIR 2010 SCW 3308 and argued that the order passed by the trial Court is legal and proper.

5. We have perused the plaint wherein the Plaintiffs have not denied the fact that sale deed dated 21-10-1998 bears the thumb impression of Plaintiff No. 1. Their main contention is that the thumb impression of Plaintiff No. 1 on the sale deed was obtained by misrepresentation. It is, therefore, an admitted fact that the sale deed does bear thumb impression of the executant/Plaintiff No. 1 (now dead).

6. The payment of court-fee is governed by the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short, "the Act"). According to Section 6, no document of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule to the Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of justice unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Second Schedule requires payment of court-fee of Rs. 60/- on plaint in suit to obtain a declaration decree where no consequential relief is prayed- However, where the suit is for declaration and consequential relief, the court-fee is to be paid as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) which reads as under:

7. (Computation of fees payable in certain suits.-- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows --

(iv) In suits --

(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief, to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal with a minimum fee of forty rupees. In all such suits the Plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

7. The question required to be addressed in this petition is that whether the Plaintiffs are liable to pay ad-valorem court-fee on the sale consideration stated in the sale deed of which Plaintiff No. 1 is the executant when they have made an allegation in the plaint that it is void.

8. In Suhrid Singh AIR