Judgment :- Ramakrishnan, J. This is an appeal filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 69 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. Office has raised a question regarding the Court fee to be paid in the appeal. 2. The suit was one for cancellation or setting aside the registered sale deeds executed by the plaintiff-respondent in favour of the appellants and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties. There were certain other incidental and allied reliefs also. Suit was filed by the respondent as an indigent person. She has valued the two reliefs, namely cancellation of the documents and recovery of possession, separately at Rs.1 lakh each and has stated that court fee is payable separately for the two reliefs. As per the decree, the impugned sale deeds have been cancelled and the relief of recovery of possession has also been allowed. 3. In the appeal, the appellants have shown a valuation of Rs.1 lakh adopting the market value of the plaint schedule properties sold as per the impugned sale deeds as given in the plaint. However, Court fee has been paid only under S.40 of the Court Fees Act (for short 'the act) on the market value of the properties covered by the two sale deeds. As regards the payment of Court fee for the relief of recovery possession, the appellants have stated that the said relief is only ancillary to the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds and no separate court fee is payable thereof, 4. Office has noted defects regarding the payment of Court fee as indicated below: "This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. against the decree thereof directing the 1. setting aside the assignment deeds and 2. recovery of possession of schedule properties value of schedule property is Rs. 1,00,000/- and in the court below the plaintiff has paid court fee on a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000 + 1,00,000/-) since the reliefs are separate and distinct (u.s.40 and 30 of the act). The appellant herein has paid court fee on the first relief only and has staled that the second relief being ancillary no separate court tee is payable. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000 + 1,00,000/-) since the reliefs are separate and distinct (u.s.40 and 30 of the act). The appellant herein has paid court fee on the first relief only and has staled that the second relief being ancillary no separate court tee is payable. In this connection, it is submitted that possession of immovable property paid cancellation of deeds and decree are shown as separate and distinct reliefs under S.30 and 40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (An additional court fee of Rs. 5,800/- is payable if the reliefs are treated as separate). 5. It is true that the respondent has filed the suit on the basis that the Court fee is payable separately for the two reliefs. It is also true that Ss.30 and 40 of the Act respectively deal with suits for possession not otherwise provided for and suits for cancellation of decrees, etc., separately. Obviously, the suit in this case cannot be treated as a suit merely for possession" coming within the purview of S.30 or one merely for cancellation falling under S.40 of the Act. It is a suit in which two separate reliefs are sought for based on the same cause of action. Payment of Court fee in such suits, which are referred to in the Act as 'multifarious' suits, is governed by the provisions contained in S.6,of the Act. S.6(1) with its proviso which alone need be referred to for the purpose of deciding the point is in the following terms: "6. Multifarious suits - (1) In any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs: Provided that, if a relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief'. There cannot be any dispute in this case that both the reliefs are prayed for on the basis of the same cause of action though the reliefs are separate and distinct. The respondent lost her title and possession over the property on the execution of the impugned sale deeds. What is stated as the main relief is the cancellation of the sale deeds. The respondent lost her title and possession over the property on the execution of the impugned sale deeds. What is stated as the main relief is the cancellation of the sale deeds. The other relief is for recovery of possession of the property, which the respondent has lost on the execution of the sale deeds. Relief of recovery of possession is a relief, which supports or assists the plaintiff in effectuating the main relief. Wharton Law Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'ancillary' as 'that which works out, or assists, or is subordinate to, some other decision'. The relief of recovery of possession in this case can therefore be treated only as a relief ancillary to the main relief of cancellation of the sale deeds. The proviso to S.6(1) makes it clear that if a relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief. If the relief of recovery of possession can be legitimately treated as ancillary to the main relief of cancellation of the sale deeds as per S.6(1) of the Act, Court fee chargeable and payable was only on the main relief, namely cancellation of the sale deeds. 6. In a very early decision of the Madras High Court reported in Thangachi Animal v. Mohammed Moideen Mahcair (ILR 56 Mad. 401) it has been held that relief for possession of the properties covered by a sale deed or decree or purchased in execution of the 'decree, asked for along with the relief to cancel the deed or decree, is merely ancillary to the main claim and separate Court-fee is not payable for it. The same is the view taken in Shyam Lai v. Keshar Devi and Ors. (ILR 1970 Raj. 379). We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above decisions. 7. We would accordingly hold that the appellant is liable to pay Court fee only on the main relief of cancellation of the sale deeds as the relief of recovery of possession claimed by the respondent and allowed by the Court below can only be treated as ancillary to the main relief. There will, therefore, be a direction to the office to number the appeal in case the court fee paid on the relief of cancellation of the impugned sale deeds is proper and sufficient.