G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-8-79 passed in M. A. No. 21 of 1978 on the file of the Civil Judge, Hospet, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 6-12-78 passed by the munsiff, Kudligi, on Issue No. 4, in o. S. No. 277 of 1977, on his file, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordering that the plaint be returned for presentation to proper Court. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that the nomination of an insurance policy in favour of defendant-1 was void and for injunction against the defendants. In that suit, he paid Court fee as contemplated under S. 24 (d) of the Karnataka court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), showing the valuation at Rs. 250. That was objected to and the matter was enquired into and the learned Munsiff held that since the real prayer in the suit was to cancel the nomination by holding it as void, the Court-fee should be paid on the value pertaining to the document viz. , the insurance policy. In that view, he directed that the plaint shall be returned for presentation to proper court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the Civil Judge, Hospet, in M. A. No. 21 of 1978, on his file, and the learned civil Judge, on hearing, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the trial Court, Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that what he has asked for is merely a declaration and, therefore, s. 24 (d) of the Act is applicable. In support of his case, he cited a decision in the case of wherein His Lordship the then Chief Justice Venkataramaiya, J. has observed that in a suit for a, declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a certain amount lying in deposit in a treasury in the name of Amildar and for a permanent injunction, to restrain the defendant from withdrawing the same, the plaintiff need not pay anything more than the Court-fee prescribed under s. 24 (d) of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is true that if the suit was merely for a declaration of his rights, then what he submitted would be correct. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this is not a suit merely for a declaration of his right, but it is, in effect and substance, a suit for cancellation of the nomination executed by the deceased to disburse the monies under the policy to defendant-1 in the suit. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly considered the real purpose and substance of the suit as laid down by the Supreme Court of india wherein the supreme Court of India has laid down that the Court in deciding the question of Court-fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for and that mere astuteness in drafting the plaint should not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. ( 5 ) THUS, looking into the substance of the relief asked for, I am satisfied that the substantial relief sought for in the instant case is not a declaration of the right of the plaintiff but a declaration that the nomination in the document executed by the deceased creating a right to receive the money by defendant-1 should be cancelled. ( 6 ) FOR a prayer to cancel a document, the proper section applicable is s. 38 of the Act, which states:"suits for cancellation of decrees, etc.- (1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a moneyvalue, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be- if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed; if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled such part of the amount or value of the property. " ( 7 ) IN the instant case, what is sought to be cancelled is the nomination. " ( 7 ) IN the instant case, what is sought to be cancelled is the nomination. A nomination creates a right to receive in future in favour of defendant-1, the money covered under the policy of the deceased and it becomes effective after the death of the insured, in the instant case, the deceased. In such a case, the value shall be deemed to be the value of the subject-matter and the value of the subject matter, as is stated in s. 38 of the Act, is the property for which the document was executed. The document, in this case, was executed to cover the value of the policy and the value of the subject matter would be the value of the policy. Relying on that, the Courts below have held that the valuation of the suit exceeds rs. 10,000 and therefore, the plaint has to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The view taken by the Courts below is quite legal and proper. I have no ground to interfere with such an order sitting in revisional jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Since the matter relates to payment of Court fee, notice was ordered to government Advocate and Shri C. S. Kothavale was heard in the matter and he is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from to-day. No costs. --- *** --- .