JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is plaintiff's first appeal against the dismissal of the suit by order dated 4.11.89. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the present suit by alleging that he agreed to sale the property in dispute for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- and agreed to execute the document for a sum of Rs. 3,500/- only in order to save stamp duty. In terms of the agreement the sale deed was duly executed in favour of the defendant. However, thereafter, defendant refused to pay the consideration to Rs. 11,000/-. Thus according to the plaintiff he was induced to execute the sale-deed in favour of defendant by fraud for the defendant who has not paid any consideration. He claimed himself to' be in possession of the suit property and and specifically stated in para 8 of his plaintiff he is entitled to get the sale-deed cancelled and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. The relief was couched in the following terms.: " vr% oknh dk uez fuosnu gS fd oknh e; [kpkZ Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj fookn xzLr fodz; ys[k fnukad 12-6-85 ckjg twu fipklh dks oknh ds fo:) izHkkoghu o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djuk Qjekosa ,oa izfroknh dks fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij oknh ds dCts dk'r esa n[ky djus ls jksduk Qjek;saA " Keeping in view the tenor of relief as a relief for declaration the plaintiff paid court-fees on half the valuation of the property, under section 24 (b) of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act. 4. The defendant in his written statement alleged that Court fee was payable on 11,000/- The trial court by its order dated 6.5.89 decided the issue no. 2 as preliminary issue and held that the suit is for cancellation of sale-deed for which court-fee is payable under section 38 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Ad-valorem on market value of the property. For coming to this decision the trial court relied on the decision of this court in Smt. Narmabada v. Smt. Aashi, AIR 1987 Raj. 162 . 5. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the suit is for mere declaration and consequential relief for permanent injunction or is a suit for cancellation of document sale-deed. 6. 162 . 5. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the suit is for mere declaration and consequential relief for permanent injunction or is a suit for cancellation of document sale-deed. 6. It is trite law that the nature of relief has to be judged from the totality of the averments made in plaint. The nature of relief cannot be judged divorced from the facts 'pleaded in the plaint. As I have noticed above, the plaintiff's pleading clear in this regard that he has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant but has not received the consideration and he is continuing in possession and therefore, he is entitled to get the sale-deed cancelled.Reference in this connection may be made to Ambrish Kumar v. U.P. Financial Corporation, AIR 1984 Allahabad 113 , wherein a suit for injunction against Financial Corporation filed for restraining it from interfering with plaintiff's right on the ground of alleged in-validity attached to mortgage. The Court held that as the case involved issues of cancellation and adjudication of validity of mortgage-deed on the ground of it being void or voidable it was a suit falling within Section 7(IV A) of the Court Fee Act as applicable in Uttar Pradesh calling for advalorem Court fee on market value and not under Clause [IV B(b)] as per valuation of relief put by plaintiff treating it to be an injunction suit. 7. It is not the case of the plaintiff that agreement is otherwise void. In these circumstances, the prayer has to be construed as prayer for cancellation of sale-deed and in my opinion the trial Court was right in determining the issues of court-fee on that basis. 8. However, in view of the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the appellant prays that further time for depositing deficient court-fees may be allowed to the plaintiff and he may not be penalised for not depositing the court-fees in the trial Court as he was contesting the finding on issue relating to Court-fee. In these circumstances, while maintaining the finding on issue no. 2, the appeal is allowed and it is ordered that if the appellant prays the deficient court-fees on the valuation of the property determined by the trial Court by 15th of April, 94, the suit may be proceeded with, else, suit shall stand dismissed. No further time shall be extended.Appeal allowed. *******