JUDGMENT : M.P. Varma, J. – The plaintiff having been aggrieved by the ORDER :of the learned Subordinate judge, Bhagalpur whereby on a careful scrutiny of the plaint he has held that the reliefs claimed in the shape of declaration that the 3 Deeds of Gifts executed separately by Defendants 1, 2 & 3, in favour of defendant no. 4, are all null and void and without jurisdiction, and not binding on the plaintiff and that defendant no. 4 did not acquire any right and title in the, suit land through the said Deeds of gift, after first, declaring that the' plaintiff is the real owner of the suit land and defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were only ‘Benamidars’, and that they had no right to gift away the lands under the said Deeds. 2. The Stamp – Reporter of the civil court noted for demanding three declaratory court-fees separately for all the three Deeds of Gifts. 3. The plaintiff objected to the report of the Stamp Reporter before the court, and the latter, on examining the whole plaint, ORDER :ed for payment of ad valorem court – fees on the amount of Rs.900/ - as put by the plaintiff as, the market-vatue of the suit land, i.e. lands covered under said Deeds of gifts. The Court below in so determining the court – fees, has relied upon a Full Bench decision of our own Court, in the case of Mt. Rupa v. Bhatu Mahto (A.I.R. 1944 Patna 17). 4. The law regarding payment of court fees is settled that the averments in the plaint are to be taken as they are, and nothing can be imported which is not averred in the plaint, meaning thereby that the court-fees is chargeable on this plaint as it is and not on what it ought to be. 4. The law regarding payment of court fees is settled that the averments in the plaint are to be taken as they are, and nothing can be imported which is not averred in the plaint, meaning thereby that the court-fees is chargeable on this plaint as it is and not on what it ought to be. To clarify this, it is enough to state that if suit requires to be framed as one for declaration, followed by a consequential reliefs and the plaintiff frames his suit only for a declaration and not for consequential relief, the court can not insist upon the plaintiff to seek the consequential relief as well, and then demand a court fees upon the value of the subject matter, The court has to accept a declaratory, fee in that case, and if it is ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to ask for a consequential relief which was necessarily required upon such a declaration the suit itself shall meet dismissal under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. But the position would be extremely different, where the plaintiff seeks declaration that a, particular Deed of Gift if null and void and not binding on him, the same having been executed by the plaintiff’s Farzidar’ with respect to property not in possession of the ‘Farzidar’, and brands the said document as fraudulent and collusive. In such a case, the document being on the face of it, duly executed and registered, it carries with it a necessary legal consequence that the title to the property under the document has been prima facie conveyed, and it would necessarily require to be cancelled by an ORDER :of the court, in ORDER :to get rid of the legal consequences attaching to the Deed. In seeking such relief, the very object of the suit is to seek the cancellation of the Deed and such a relief of cancellation though not explicitly in terms asked for, yet it is a relief ‘implicit’ in the suit itself. In that case the substance and not the form will matter. 5. In the ORDER :impugned the court below has come to the right conclusion though the reasons assigned are partly fallacious. In that case the substance and not the form will matter. 5. In the ORDER :impugned the court below has come to the right conclusion though the reasons assigned are partly fallacious. The court however has rightly held that the three Deeds of Gift are necessary to be set aside, for the plaintiff to get rid of these documents, but it has wrongly observed that the question of possession of the plaintiff has to be examined in the case. The distinction between the ‘relief implicit’ and ‘relief consequential’ has to be kept in mind before passing ORDER :s with regard to court-fees. In case of ‘relief implicit’, the court is under legal obligation to examine the real substance and not the form and demand court – fees accordingly, whereas in case of ‘relief consequential’, the court is simply to examine the ‘declaration part’ and accept the plaintiff’s declaratory court – fees, leaving him for the perlious results that may ultimately befall on him depending upon the court’s finding regarding plaintiff’s omission to seek relief consequential to the declaration. 6. In the present case the court has rightly demanded the ad valorem court fees holding that setting aside of the Deed has been implicitly aimed at in the suit. 7. The application fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.