JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Defendant No. 2 is the Petitioner against an order dated 8-1-1988 passed by the Additional Munsif. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the suit has to be valued u/s 7(iv)(a) of the Court-Fees Act as amended in Orissa or being a declaratory suit, Article 3-A of Scbedule-I of the said Act will apply. The learned Additional Munsif has come to hold that Article 3-A of Schedule-l applies and, therefore, the valuation given in the plaint is correct and the jurisdiction of the Munsif is not ousted. 3. The Plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 1 of 1983 is fraudulent and illegal and does not bind the Plaintiff and, therefore, the Plaintiff and Defendants 1, 2 and 3 and their ancestors are the legal owners of the disputed land. In the body of the plaint several averments have been made indicating the grounds on which the compromise decree does not bind the Plaintiff. 4. The Defendants have filed written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint and also have taken a ground that the suit has been grossly under-valued and proper court-fee has not been paid, inasmuch as the suit being essentially one to nullify the effect of an earlier compromise decree under which property worth more than Rs. 60,000/- was disposed of, Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court-fees Act has to apply and not Article 3-A of Schedule-I. 5. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court had been challenged and since the said jurisdiction was to be disposed of as a pure question of law, the learned Additional Munsif took that issue and on coming to a conclusion that it is Article 3-A of Schedule-I that applies held the valuation to be proper and consequently held that the Munsif had the jurisdiction to decide the suit. Hence the present revision. 6. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in view of the averments made in the plaint and the relief claimed, Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court-Fees Act, as amended in Orissa, would govern the case and not Article-3-A of Schedule-I. Section 7(iv)(a) is extracted hereunder in extenso: 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits. Hence the present revision. 6. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in view of the averments made in the plaint and the relief claimed, Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court-Fees Act, as amended in Orissa, would govern the case and not Article-3-A of Schedule-I. Section 7(iv)(a) is extracted hereunder in extenso: 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned except suits for relief u/s 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be computed as follows: ............ (iv) in suits- (a) for other movable property of no market value for movable property where the subject-matter has no market value, as for instance, in the case documents relating to title, The Orissa Amendment of said section is quoted hereinbelow in extenso: (iv-a) in a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to 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 the value of the property for which the decree was passed or the other document 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. Explanation: In any case where a suit for the cancellation of a whole decree for money or other property having a money value or other document securing money or other property having such value has to be instituted but the substantial relief claimed is only in respect of a part of the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or the other document was executed, the value of the subject- matter of the suit shall be deemed to be such part of the amount or value ot the property in respect of which the relief is sought. Article 3-A of Schedule-I deals with suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. 7. Article 3-A of Schedule-I deals with suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. 7. The moot question for decision, therefore, is whether the suit in the present case is merely to obtain a declaratory relief without any consequential relief so as to come within the ambit of Article 3-A of Schedule-l or it is essentially a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value so as to come within the ambit of Section 7(iv-a) Orissa Amendment. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner very strenuously argues that tough the relief has been couched in the form at a mere declaration but unless the compromise decree is set aside the relief cannot be given and, therefore, the suit is essentially one for cancellation of the earlier compromise decree and such a suit will be covered by Section 7(iv-a) Orissa Amendment of the Court-Fees Act. Reading the plaint as a whole would clearly indicate that what the Plaintiff wants is a cancellation of the earlier compromise decree and that too on the ground that Defendants 2 and 4 had obtained the said compromise decree on false representation without the knowledge of Mukta Dei. Section 7(iv-a) came up for consideration before this Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. v. Firm Raojibhai Patel Gourishankar Joshi and Co. and Ors. Civ. Rev. No. 378/58-0/l4-12-1960 : 27 (1961) C.L.T. (Notes) 53 and it has been held in the said case that when an instrument is one which requires to be set aside before it can be avoided, the suit is one for cancellation of the instrument, though the relief claimed be in a declaratory form and it is covered by Section 7(iv-a) o( the Court-Fees Act. The question again came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Chintamani Naik v. Panchanan Naik and Ors. 32 (1866) C.L.T. 434. It has been held in the aforesaid case that the suit being one to set aside a previous decree, until the compromise decree is set aside as a whole, no relief can be granted in favour of the Plaintiff, it is covered by Section 7(iv-a) of the Court-Fees Act and therefore, the valuation would be determined in accordance with the said section. 8. 8. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-opposite party contends that the aforesaid decisions will have no application since Section 7(iv-a) would apply to suits for money. This contention is based on the heading of Section 7. But the said contention does not impress at all since the Orissa Amendment is clear and categorical and applies to a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value and since the suit is essentially one for cancellation of the compromise decree, in my considered opinion, Section 7(iv-a) would apply. the learned Additional Munsif, in my view, committed an error in coming to the conclusion that it is Article 3-A of schedule-I of the Court-Fees Act that was applicable in the present case. The order of the learned Munsif is accordingly set aside. The valuation has now to be determined in accordance with the property involved in the compromise decree and necessarily, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Munsif will be ousted to entertain the suit. This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed and in view of my conclusion that the Munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaint has to be returned to be presented in the proper forum after valuing the same in accordance with law and after payment of proper court-fee. I make no older as to costs. Revision allowed.