JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the order dated 3-2-2011 passed by ADJ, Neemuch in Case No. 9-A/2010 whereby preliminary issue No. 5 relating to Court-fee was decided against the petitioner, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alleging that the respondent No. 1 is the adopted son of the petitioner and was taken in adoption on 10-4-1992. It was alleged that thus the respondent No. 1 is having one half share in the suit property. It was alleged that petitioner has sold the property to respondent No. 2 vide registered sale-deed dated 26-5-2008 claiming to be sole owner of the suit property while respondent No. 1 is having equal share in the suit property being owner of the property. It was prayed that it be declared that such property is the property of Undivided Joint Hindu Family and respondent No. 1 is having one half share in the suit property and the sale-deed executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 2 is void and is having no binding effect on the respondent No. 1. It was prayed that petitioner be restrained from transferring of possession of suit property to the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 be restrained not to alienate the suit property. For the purpose of declaration the suit was valued as Rs. 3,67,800/- and the Court-fee of Rs. 1,000/- was fixed. For the purpose of permanent injunction suit was valued as Rs. 400/- and ad valorem Court fee of Rs. 80/- was paid. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing the written statement wherein it was denied that the respondent No. 1 is the adopted son of the petitioner. It was denied that at any point of time respondent No. 1 has adopted the petitioner. In the suit it was alleged that suit has not been properly valued and also insufficient Court-fee has been paid. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the issues. Issue No. 5 reads as under :- "Whether the respondent No. 1 has valued the suit property and has paid sufficient Court-fee ?" 3. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the issues. Issue No. 5 reads as under :- "Whether the respondent No. 1 has valued the suit property and has paid sufficient Court-fee ?" 3. Since the issue was not required any evidence, therefore the same was framed as preliminary issue and was decided against the petitioner against which the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submit that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 is the adopted son of the petitioner. It is submitted that ultimate relief as prayed in the suit is that respondent No. 1 is having one half share in the suit property but no relief has been claimed by the respondent No. 1 that it be declared that respondent No. 1 is the adopted son of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court on the Rules under the Suit Valuation Act, which were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 by the State Government for assessing the valuation of land in M.P. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 reads as under :- "2. Suits of the following classes shall, for the purposes of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and the Central Provinces Act, 1917, be treated as it the subject matter of such suits were of the value of four hundred rupees :- (1) ** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) suits for a declaration that an adoption is valid or invalid : Provided that if a suit for a declaration that an adoption is valid or invalid affects a title to property, then the value of that property, if it exceeds Rs. 400/-, shall be deemed to be the value of the subject matter of the suit." 5. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Kailash Narayan Vs. Bundi Bai, AIR 1978 MP 94 , wherein the suit was for declaration that alleged adoption was invalid affects, title of adopted son to property and value of property exceeding Rs. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Kailash Narayan Vs. Bundi Bai, AIR 1978 MP 94 , wherein the suit was for declaration that alleged adoption was invalid affects, title of adopted son to property and value of property exceeding Rs. 400/-, this Court held that value of property is subject matter of suit and ad valorem Court fee on same is to be paid. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Israt Jahan Vs. Rajia Begum, 2010(1) M.P.H.T. 338 (DB) = 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 , wherein suit for declaration that the registered sale deed executed by husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 is illegal and void. However, relief clause is couched in declaratory form which was having the effect on cancelling/avoiding it, this Court held that suit valued for the purpose of declaration at Rs. 5,64,400/- being the valuation of sale deed would be governed by Section 7 (iv) (c) and an ad valorem Court fees would be payable as setting aside the sale deed is implicit in the declaratory relief sought by the plaintiff. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submit that for the purpose of valuation and payment of Court fees plaint allegation has to be seen. It is submitted that defendant cannot be compel the plaintiff to file a suit in a particular form. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Varud Ahmed Vs. Nihal Ahmed, 1996 (I) MPWN 235, wherein this Court has held that in a suit for declaration and injunction separate valuation for injunction made and accordingly Court-fees paid, determination of Court fees has to be made from averments of plaint as to whether relief of injunction is consequential or inconsequential. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 7. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 7. From perusal of plaint, it is evident that the respondent No. 1 is claiming rights over the suit property on the strength of adoption as respondent No. 1 is claiming himself to be adopted son. However, in the plaint no relief has been claimed that it be declared that respondent No. 1 is the adopted son. In the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh, AIR 2010 SC 2807 , whereby a suit for declaration that sale-deed executed by plaintiffs father is null and void and for joint possession Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, Court fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deeds. It was further held that Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7 (iv) (c). 8. In the present case, respondent No. 1 is challenging the validity of sale-deed executed by the petitioner alleging to be himself as adopted son. This fact has not been admitted by the petitioner. No prayer has been made by the respondent No. 1 in the suit that he be declared as adopted son. Unless and until it is found that respondent No. 1 is the adopted son of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 is not entitled for claiming any relief as respondent No. 1 is claiming the rights in the property on the basis of adoption. In the facts and circumstances of the case petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall move an appropriate application for amendment in the written statement before the learned Court below wherein petitioner shall specifically raise the fact that respondent No. 1 is not entitled for claiming any relief as respondent No. 1 has not prayed that the respondent No. 1 be declared as adopted son of the petitioner. If such an application is filed, then, after hearing Counsel of the respondent No. 1, learned Court below shall decide the same in accordance with law. In case the application is allowed, then, the learned Court below shall re-frame the issues keeping in view the amended pleadings. 9. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.