ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of both the revisions No. 329/94 & 330/94 which have been heard analogously. 2. Suits giving rise to these revision petitions are instituted by the applicants in the Court below seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. The suits relate to certain agricultural lands which the applicant-plaintiffs claim to have purchased from one Vishwanath through a registered sale deed dated 24.5.1987. Earlier one Krishnarao Babarkar had filed a civil suit against the present applicant-plaintiffs, the non-applicant defendant No. 1 and one Ku. Gayatri challenging the aforesaid sale deed dated 24.5.1987. The possession of lands was also claimed in that former suit. The suit was dismissed on 17.1.1994 by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal. It appears that the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Pramila Bai has executed two separate sale deeds of the suit lands in favour of the non-applicants Dilipsingh (non-applicant No. 2 of C.R. No. 330/94) and Smt. Manni (non-applicant No.2 of C.R. No. 329/94). 3. The applicant - plaintiffs have filed present suits seeking declaration that the two sale deeds executed by Smt. Pramila Bai are void and ineffective. They further claim to be in possession of the suit land also and seek relief of permanent injunction against the purchasers (non-applicant No.2 in both the revisions). For the purpose of relief of declaration a fix Court fee Rs. 30/- is paid while for the relief of permanent injunction the suit is valued at Rs. 300/- and Court fees Rs. 30/- is paid. 4. The Court below vide its impugned orders passed in both the suits held that the plaint in each case is liable to ad-valorem Court fee u/s. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The applicant-plaintiffs are accordingly required to pay deficit Court fees or else their plaints are ordered to be rejected under Or. VII R. 11 C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by these orders the plaintiffs have come up in revision in both the suits before this Court. . 5. Having heard Shri A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri J. W. Mahajan for the non-applicants, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the trial Court erred in law in directing the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the reliefs as claimed. 6. . 5. Having heard Shri A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri J. W. Mahajan for the non-applicants, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the trial Court erred in law in directing the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the reliefs as claimed. 6. The point projected in these revisions stands resolved by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Santosh Chandra & others v. Smt. Gyansunder Bai ( 1970 JLJ 290 = 1970 MPLJ 363 ) wherein it is held: "Where it is necessary for a plaintiff to avoid an agreement or a decree or a liability imposed, it is necessary for him to avoid that and unless he seeks the relief of having that decree, agreement, document or liability set aside, he is not entitled to a declaration simpliciter. In such cases the question of Court-fees has to be determined under sec. 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. But, however, where a plaintiff is not a party to such decree, agreement, instrument or liability, and he cannot be deemed to be a representative in interest of the person who is bound by that decree, agreement, instrument or liability he can sue for a declaration simpliciter, provided he is-also in possession of the property. If he is not in possession of the property, the proviso to sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act might be a bar to the tenability of the suit framed for the relief of declaration simpliciter. If the plaintiff is not bound by that decree or agreement or liability and if he is not required to have it set aside, he will have to pay court-fees under any of the clauses of Art. 17 Schedule II of the Court-fees Act." 7. This Court again in Omprakash & others v. Suratram & others [1993 (2) M.P. Judicial Report 356] has referred with approval the following observations made in an earlier decision in the case of Baldeosingh v. Gopalsingh (1967 JLL 350) : "Further where the plaintiff is not bound either by a deed or a decree to which he is Co-nominee not a party or privy because of its being void on the allegations made by him, then his claim for declaration with reference to his title to the property, alleged to be in his possession, will not be taken to involve a claim for a consequential relief." 8. Similar view was taken in Pannalal v. Smt. Muliyabai [1986 (II) MPWN 5]. 9. In the instant cases admittedly the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deeds sought to be declared as void and ineffective. Further they claim to be in possession of the suit lands. In view of the matter their claim for declaration with reference to their title to the property alleged to be in their possession, cannot be taken to involve a claim for consequential relief. The relief of permanent injunction in the light of averment of possession, cannot be treated to be consequential to the relief of declaration as the former relief is capable of being sought independently of the relief of declaration. Needless to add that for the purpose of payment of Court fees, the plaint averments alone are to be considered (see Om Prakash's case; supra). The two suits as framed are not for declaration where consequential relief is claimed and as such not liable to advalorem Court fees u/s. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. The reliefs of declaration and injunction, on the facts as pleaded, are capable of being claimed independently of each other. The suits, therefore, squarely fell within Art. 17 of Schedule II and Sub-clause (d) of Clause (iv) of Sec. 7 of the Court Fees Act. The valuation done and the Court fees paid by the plaintiffs are, therefore, held to be proper. 10. In the result, both these revisions are allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside. 11. Both the revisions thus stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. This order be retained in C.R. No. 329/94 and a copy be placed in the record of C.R. No. 330/94.