ORDER : The petitioners-original plaintiffs have filed the present petition challenging the order dt. 27-2-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Ajmer, Camp Beawar, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Suit No. 89/2003 (10/1998). 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed suit against the respondents-defendants seeking cancellation of the sale of the property made by the defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No. 7 & 8 on 1-3-1993 and for seeking possession of the said property. In the said suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs have valued the suit to the extent of Rs. 13,12,000/-, giving bifurcation to the effect that the valuation of the suit for cancellation of sale was Rs. 3,12,000/- and valuation of suit for possession was Rs. 10 lacs. The petitioners-plaintiffs had also filed an application under Order XXXIII of CPC seeking permission of the Court to sue them as indigent person. The present respondent No. 9 also filed an application under Order XXXIII, Rules 5 & 6 for rejecting the suit on non-payment of the requisite court-fees. The petitioners-plaintiffs thereupon submitted an application under Section 149 read with S.151 CPC praying inter alia, that the plaintiffs be permitted to proceed further with the suit on payment of court-fees to the extent of Rs. 15,725/-, calculated on the basis of sale price at Rs. 3,12,000/- + 800/-. The trial Court dismissed the said application of the petitioners-plaintiffs by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed. 3. The Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has drawn attention of the Court to the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), more particularly, to Sections 24 and 38 of the said Act and submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs were liable to pay the court-fees on the market value of the suit property, when the prayer was made for declaration and for possession, as per Section 24, and also when the prayer was made for cancellation of the document as per Section 38 of the said Act. He also submitted that it was mistake on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs to make valuation of their suit for two prayers separately namely for declaration and for possession. He also submitted that it was mistake on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs to make valuation of their suit for two prayers separately namely for declaration and for possession. He also submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs would pay the deficit court-fees, if the trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit comes to the conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs are liable to pay the court-fees at the higher market value. 4. However, Mr. V. S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5, has submitted that even as per the valuation made by the petitioners-plaintiffs in the plaint, the petitioners-plaintiffs would be liable to pay court-fees on Rs. 13,12,000/- and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs. 5. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioners-plaintiffs have valued their suit for declaration and possession at Rs. 13,12,000/- by stating inter alia that the suit was valued at Rs. 3,12,000/- for cancellation of sale and was valued at Rs. 10 lacs for possession. Since the petitioners-plaintiffs had alleged that they did not have sufficient means to pay the court-fees, they had filed an application under Order XXXIII for permitting them to sue as indigent persons. However, subsequently, they submitted another application to the effect that the market value of the suit property, being only Rs. 3,12,000/-, they were ready to make payment of the court-fees on the said market value. However, the said application has not been granted by the trial Court. 6. In the opinion of this Court, since the petitioners-plaintiffs have sought prayer for declaration and possession, the requisite court-fees, to be paid by the petitioners-plaintiffs, would be on the market value of the property as per Section 24(a) of the said Act. Though the petitioners-plaintiffs have not prayed for cancellation of any document, even if it is presumed that the petitioners-plaintiffs have sought to cancel the sale of the suit property which had taken place on 1-3-1993 and even if it is presumed that the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs is governed by Section 38 of the said Act, then also they would be liable to pay the court-fees on the value of the property for which the document was executed. Since the property was sold by the defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No. 7 & 8 through public auction for the consideration of Rs. Since the property was sold by the defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No. 7 & 8 through public auction for the consideration of Rs. 3,12,000/- in the opinion of this Court, the suit was required to be valued as per the market value of the suit property and the petitioners-plaintiffs were required to pay the court-fees on the said market value. Since Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has also submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs would pay the deficit court-fees, if they are found liable to pay the court-fees on the higher market value at the time of final hearing of the suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs are required to be permitted to proceed further with the suit on the payment of the court-fees to be calculated on the basis of the market value at Rs. 3,12,000/- which was the sale consideration of the suit property in question. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. The order dt. 27-1-2005 passed by the trial Court is set aside. the petitioners-plaintiffs are permitted to deposit the court-fees on the basis of valuation of the suit to the extent of Rs. 3,12,000/- subject to the condition that the petitioners-plaintiffs shall pay the deficit court-fees, if any, if directed by the trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.