ORDER The petitioners filed a suit seeking for a declaration that the Will dated 9-1-1978 is valid and 13 other consequential reliefs including declaration etc. An application under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was filed by the defendants seeking determination and payment of the appropriate Court fee in the plaint. The Trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application and directed the petitioners-plaintiffs to value the suit under Section 26(a) of the Act. Hence, the present petition. 2. Sri S.V. Prakash the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the plaint averments contends that the suit has been properly valued in terms of Section 26(c) of the Act. The Trial Court misdirected itself in concluding that the relief sought for by the plaintiff is declaratory and hence the suit was required to be valued under Section 26(a) of the Act. In support of his contentions, he relies on the judgment in Neelavathi and Others v N. Natarajan and Others with reference to paragraph 6 which reads as follows.- "On reading of the plaint as a whole, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is settled law that the question of Court fee must be considered in the light of the allegation made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits". Therefore, he contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. Sri Hanumantharayappa, learned Government Advocate defends the impugned order and submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 4. Heard learned Counsels. 5. A plain reading of the exhaustive plaint averments will leave no hesitation that the title of the plaintiffs having been denied, the suit seeking for a decree of declaration and for possession would attract the provisions of Section 26(a) of the Act and not under Section 26(c). Hence, the title of the petition being denied, for which a relief of declaration is sought, the provisions of Section 26(a) of the Act is attracted. Hence, the title of the petition being denied, for which a relief of declaration is sought, the provisions of Section 26(a) of the Act is attracted. Therefore, irrespective of the stand of the defendants in the written statement, a reading of the plaint averments would disclose what is stated above. The Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit requires to be valued under Section 26(a) and not under Section 26(c) of the Act, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected. Rule discharged.