JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner quash the impugned order dated 15.5.2009 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 812006 by the Addl..District judge No. 2, Sriganganagar and prayed that the trial art may be directed to try and decide the issue No. 3 framed in the suit as preliminary issue. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondents ed suit for cancellation of Will dated 12.5.2005 and declaring the same as null d void alongwith prayer for permanent injunction against the petitioner defendant. The land for which the Will was executed in favour of the defendant- petitioner is located in two different villages and, in the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents, they valued the suit property at Rs. 50,100/- and paid Court-fee of 2,570/-. In the written-statement filed by the petitioner-defendant it is denied at the will is forged one; more so, it is submitted that the Will is genuine and further a specific objection was raised that valuation of the suit property is Rs. 1,83,20,000/-, upon which, Court-fee of Rs. 9,16,000/- is payable, therefore, the it has been filed upon highly deficit Court-fee. 3. The trial Court framed issues for the trial and issue No. 3 was framed with regard to the dispute for lesser valuation of the property, therefore, the defendant petitioners requested the trial Court to decide issue No. 3 as preliminary issue as r Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and under Order 14 Rule 2, C.P.C. but the respondent-plaintiff contested the case and lal Court after hearing both parties passed order on 15.5.2009 which impugned in this writ petition whereby the trial Court rejected the prayer of the efendant-petitioners to try and decide Issue No. 3 as preliminary issue. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once objection is raised with regard to less valuation of the suit, then, admittedly it is duty of the trial curt to decide the question with regard to deficit Court-fee and valuation of the suit as preliminary issue as per Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 but the trial Court while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner erroneously held that it is a mixed question of law, therefore, the said issue will be decided along with other issues in the suit finally. 5. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is illegal and in contravention of the mandate of Section 11 of the Act of 1961, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to decide issue No. 3 as preliminary issue. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards following judgments : (1) 2006 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 469, Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. v. Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur ; (2) AIR 2004 Madras 161, S.G. Badrinath v. Jagannathan & Anr. ; and (3) AIR 2002 Karnataka 332, Sri Manicklal Verma & Anr. v. Smt. Jamanadevi & Ors . While placing reliance upon the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to above judgments the trial Court is under obligation to decide the question of valuation of suit property first, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the suit was filed for cancellation of Will which is alleged to be executed by late Pyara Singh in favour of the petitioner-defendant. In the suit, the plaintiffs are wife, daughters and sons of late Pyara Singh who are having their inherent right in the property in question, for which, disputed Will is alleged to have been executed by late Pyara Singh, therefore, it is not a case for declaration of rights but it is a case for cancellation of Will and petitioner-defendant raised objection with regard to valuation of suit which is obviously not tenable for the reason that suit has not been filed for declaration of right but for cancellation of the Will which is alleged to be forged. 7. Accordingly to learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, the trial Court has rightly held that it is not a case in which issue No. 3 with regard to valuation of the property is required to be decided first and observed in the order that it is a mixed question of law, therefore, the same will be decided along with other issues. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire pleadings and impugned order, so also, judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, in the judgment of Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire pleadings and impugned order, so also, judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, in the judgment of Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. (supra), the trial Court decided application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. against which writ petition .was tiled and, admittedly, the suit was filed for cancellation of sale- deed and possession of the property but, here, in this case, the suit has been filed by the wife, daughters and sons of late Pyara Singh to cancel the Will which is alleged to be forged by the petitioner-defendant, therefore, obviously the facts of the case of Mohkam Chand Dasot are altogether different than the facts of the present case. 10. Similarly, in the judgment of S.G. Badrinath's case (supra), the Madras High Court was dealing with suit for recovery of Rs. 29,64,000/-, therefore, the facts of that case are also altogether different. 11. In the case of Manicklal Verma (supra), the suit was filed for possession of the suit property which was valued at Rs. 14,00,000/- Under Section.29 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958; but, here in the case on hand, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents for cancellation of the Will which is said to be prepared and there is no prayer for possession in the suit. Therefore, the facts of that case are also altogether different. 12. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs, following prayer has been made : " vr% okn oknhx.k is'k djds vtZ gS fd nkok cgd oknhx.k f[kykQ izfroknh fuEu izdkj ls fMdzh lkfnj Qjek;k tkos% ( d ) fd olh;rdrkZ I;kjkflag dh vksj ls tks olh;rukek QthZ] cukoVh rFkk uqekbZ'kh fnukad 12-5-2005 dks izfroknh us rS;kj fd;k vFkok djok;k x;k gS og 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh gSA ( [k ) fd izfroknh olh;r ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe pd 1 ,p NksVh o igqfoaM dks vkxs jgu] cS; o vUrfjr djus ls jgu] djus ls ckt o eewu jgsA ( x ) okn O;; fnyk;k tkosA ( ?k ) vU; vuqrks"kA " 13. After perusing the above prayer clause it is revealed that there is no prayer for possession of the suit property and prayer is only for the cancellation of Will, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order for the reason that the respondent-plaintiffs are not claiming any possession or right inasmuch as they are legal heirs of late Pyara Singh being his inherent successors.In view of above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******