Judgment 1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability, i +find that this Civil Revision is maintainable and it is held so. 2. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 4.3.2002, by which the court below rejected the prayer of the defendant-petitioners to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) on the ground that the proper court fee has not been paid on the plaint. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for following reliefs: (a) That, the court be pleased to declare the alleged four sale deeds dated 15.11.1998 executed by defendant 2nd party in favour of the defendant 1st party to be illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff, the court be further pleased to declare the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. (b) That, court be pleased to pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff through the process of the court or any other way, the plaintiff against defendant. (c) That, the cost of the suit be given to the plaintiff against defendant. 4. There is no dispute that one Shiru Chaudhary had two sons, namely, Lal Babu Choudhary and Jagdambi Choudhary. Jagdambi Choudhary had two sons, namely, plaintiff Chandrachur Choudhary and Muni Lal Choudhary. Muni Lal Choudhary had a wife-Tara Devi and a daughter-Sudha Devi. According to the plaintiff, Sudha Devi died issueless, whereas, according to the defendants, she died leaving behind three daughters, namely, Rashmi Singh, Rohini Singh and Vidya Shree (Arrayed as defendant 2nd party). According to the plaintiff, common ancestor Shiru Choudhary acquired properties at different places. The property acquired in the name of Lal Babu Choudhary was a joint family property. The property in suit was also acquired in the name of Lal Babu Choudhary which stood situated in the town of Khagaria and which was also a part of the joint family property. It was decided that Lal Babu Choudhary would later on execute a sale-deed in favour of the family members of Jagdambi Choudhary. The property in suit was also acquired in the name of Lal Babu Choudhary which stood situated in the town of Khagaria and which was also a part of the joint family property. It was decided that Lal Babu Choudhary would later on execute a sale-deed in favour of the family members of Jagdambi Choudhary. After the death of Jagdambi Choudhary, Muni Lal Choudhary became the Karta of the family and he got a sale-deed executed by said Lal Babu Choudhary in the name of his wife Tara Devi. Thereafter, there was a family arrangement with regard to the properties stood in the name of the plaintiffs brother Muni Lal Choudhary and it was decided that Muni Lal Choudhary and his wife Tara Devi would utilise the property during their life time and the ownership of the same would remain with the plaintiff. It was further stated that Muni Lal Choudhary and Tara Devi relinquished their interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff became the owner of the property and has been paying municipal taxes and getting municipal receipts. Daughter of Muni Lal Choudhary and Tara Devi, namely, Sudha Devi also died issueless, but defendant no. 1, who was a tenant in the premises, got a sale-deed executed by fictitious ladies, who are defendants 6, 7 and 8 in the suit, by claiming that they are the legal heirs of the share of Muni Lal Choudhary and Tara Devi and hence the suit. 5. The defendant-petitioners contested the plaint and their assertion was that the suit property was sold by Lal Babu Choudhary to Tara Devi wife of Muni Lal Choudhary and after the death of Muni Lal Choudhary, Tara Devi and their daughter Sudha Devi, defendants no. 6, 7 and 8 became absolute owners and they executed four sale-deeds in favour of defendants and as such they are the absolute owners of the property. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the suit on payment of declaratory fee of Rs. 250/- and a separate fee for injunction. According to the defendants, the suit is for declaration as well as for consequential relief and, accordingly, the advalorem court fee is payable under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. 7. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the suit on payment of declaratory fee of Rs. 250/- and a separate fee for injunction. According to the defendants, the suit is for declaration as well as for consequential relief and, accordingly, the advalorem court fee is payable under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. 7. The law is well-settled that while considering the question of quantum of Court-fee payable, the substance of the plaint is to be seen and not the form in which the relief is prayed for. The court has also to decide the question whether the suit is only for declaration or consequential relief has also been prayed for. It has also to see whether consequential relief has actually been prayed for or it is implicit in the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. No doubt, in a suit for declaration with consequential relief, the plaintiff is at liberty to give the fixed valuation according to his estimation both for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, but where it appears that such valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can direct for proper valuation. 8. As stated above, the suit is for declaration that the four sale-deeds executed by defendants second party are illegal, void and inoperative and there is also a prayer for injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession. Without setting aside the said sale-deeds, no declaration can be made in favour of the plaintiff. This apart, the prayer for injunction is a consequential relief to the declaration. 9. In the case of Jadunandan Pd. Sah vs. Jainandan Pd. Chaudhary, reported in 1984 RL.J.R. 862, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that the deed of gift was null and void and this Court held that when such a prayer is made, it carries with it a necessary legal consequence that title to the property, having prima facie passed under the said deed of gift, it would require to be cancelled by an order of the Court. In such a case, even if the prayer for cancellation is not sought for explicitly, the said relief is implicit in the suit itself. 10. In such a case, even if the prayer for cancellation is not sought for explicitly, the said relief is implicit in the suit itself. 10. In the case of Oebesh Bijoy Sahana vs. Mit Narain Singh, reported in 1969 P.L.J.R. (SC) 91 A, the suit was filed for declaration as well as for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from realising the rent from the tenant. The Apex Court in paragraph 8 held that such a suit will be covered by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act by virtue of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. 11. After going through the plaint, it is clear that without cancellation of the four sale-deeds, the relief prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be given. This apart, he has also prayed for a consequential relief for injunction. Accordingly, the plaintiff is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee. The plaint is insufficiently stamped. However, on that ground, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The Court has to ask the plaintiff to supply requisite stamp paper within time fixed by it and on failure of the plaintiff to do the same, the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order of the court below holding that the court fee has been properly paid by the plaintiff is set aside and it is held that the plaintiff-opposite party has to pay the ad valorem court fee within the time fixed by the court below. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff may revalue the suit, if so advised. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision is allowed with the observation/direction made above.