ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2014 by which he has been directed to properly value the suit and pay the court-fees under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. 2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is contended that defendants No.1 and 2 entered into an agreement to sell with plaintiff the agricultural land bearing Survey No.683/2, area 1.024 hectares situated at Gram Digtan, Tahsil and District Dhar. On 4.6.2000 as per the terms of the sale agreement, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and possession was obtained and since then the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land and cultivating the same. The balance amount was paid on 21.4.2001 but the sale deed could not be executed on the assurance given by the defendant No.2. The possession continued for a period of 13 years, therefore, plaintiff has acquired the title by way of adverse possession. On 11.6.2013 defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and tried to evict him from the suit property, therefore, cause of action arose for filing the suit. Later on plaintiff came to know that defendants No.1 and 2 has sold the said land to defendant No.3 by way of registered sale deed dated 30.3.2013. In the suit plaintiff prayed the reliefs that he be declared owner on the basis of adverse possession and the sale deed dated 30.3.2013 be declared as void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction 20 times to the land revenue i.e. Rs.196/-, Rs.2,75,000/- on the basis of agreement to sell, for the purpose of declaration he has valued the suit at Rs.1,000/- and permanent injunction at Rs.1,000/- and paid fix court-fees. 3. After notice respondents appeared and raised the objection about valuation and payment of court-fees by way of an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is submitted by defendant No.3 that there is no basis to value the suit at Rs.2,75,000/- and proper court-fee has not been paid as the plaintiff has challenged the sale deed of defendant No.3 which is valued at Rs.61 lacs, therefore, the suit is liable to be valued at Rs.61 lacs. It is submitted by defendant No.3 that there is no basis to value the suit at Rs.2,75,000/- and proper court-fee has not been paid as the plaintiff has challenged the sale deed of defendant No.3 which is valued at Rs.61 lacs, therefore, the suit is liable to be valued at Rs.61 lacs. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and submitted that on the basis of the relief claimed he has properly valued the suit and prayed for rejection of the application. 4. That the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.7.2014 has held that the plaintiff has failed to explain on what basis he has valued the suit at Rs.2,75,000/- and the application filed by the defendant No.3 was allowed and plaintiff was directed to value the suit as per section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and pay proper court-fees. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is true that plaintiff is free to value his suit according to his choice but so far as the payment of court-fees is concerned, section 7 of the Indian Court-fees Act would apply. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is seeking declaration that he declared owner by virtue of adverse possession. The land is admittedly agricultural land, therefore, he is required to value the suit 20 time to the land revenue and liable to pay the ad-valorem court-fees which the plaintiff has valued at Rs.196/-. The plaintiff has not filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 23.4.2001, therefore, he is not required to value the suit at Rs.2,75,000/- which was the value of the agreement, therefore, trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that without any basis plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.2,75,000/-. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil s/o Dev Kumar Radhelia and others v. Awadh Narayan and others, reported in 2011(1) JLJ 71 = 2010(4) MPLJ 431 , has held that if the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding on him then he not required to pay the ad valorem court-fees. He can claim declaration simplicitor for which court-fees under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule (II) would be sufficient, therefore, he is not required to pay the ad valorem court-fees for a declaration of sale deed dated 16.6.2013 executed between defendants No.1, 2 and 3. 7. That it would be appropriate to reproduce for ready reference section 7 of the Court-fees Act and section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act which read as under : 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits--The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows : For money - (i) In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically) - according to the amount claimed; for maintenance and annuities - (ii) In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically-according to the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year; for other movable property having a market-value. - (iii) In suits for movable property other than money, where the subject-matter has a market value according to such value at the date of presenting the plaint; (iv) In suits - for movable property of no market-value - (a) for movable property where the subject-matter has no market-value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title, to enforce a right to share in joint family property.- (b) to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, for an injunction.- (d) to obtain an injunction, for easements.- (e) for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and for accounts- (f) for accounts according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal; In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought 1[***]; for possession of land, houses and gardens.- (v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens-according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be where the subject-matter is land, and- (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled-ten times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently five times the revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint - fifteen times such net profits; but where no such net profits have arisen there from-the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as abovementioned-the market-value of the land; Proviso as to Bombay Presidency.- Provided that, in the territories subject to the Governor of Bombay in Council, the value of the land shall be deemed to be- (1) where the land is held on settlement for a period not exceeding thirty years and pays the full assessment to Government-a sum equal to five times the survey assessment; (2) where the land is held on a permanent settlement, or on a settlement for any period exceeding thirty years, and pays the full assessment to Government-a sum equal to ten times the survey assessment; and (3) where the whole or any part of the annual survey-assessment is remitted-sum computed under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of this proviso, as the case may be, in addition to ten times the assessment, or the portion of assessment, so remitted. Explanation.-The word "estate", as used in this paragraph, means any land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or a farmer or ryot shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue; for houses and gardens.- (e) where the subject-matter is a house or garden according to the market-value of the house or garden; to enforce a right of pre-emption.- (vi) In suits to enforce a right of pre-emption-according to the value [computed in accordance with paragraph (v) of this section] of the land, house or garden in respect of which the right is claimed; for interest of assignee of land revenue.- (vii) In suits for the interest of an assignee of land revenue-fifteen times his net profits as such for the year next before the date of presenting plaint; to set aside an attachment.- (viii) In suits to set aside an attachment of land or of an interest in land or revenue according to the amount for which the land or interest was attached : Provided that, where such amount exceeds the value of the land or interest, the amount of fee shall be computed as if the suit were for the possession of such land or interest; to redeem.- (ix) In suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged, to foreclose.- and in suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, or, where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute - according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage; for specific performance.- (x) In suits for specific performance- (a) of a contract of sale-according to the amount of the consideration; (b) of a contract of mortgage according to the amount agreed to be secured; (c) of a contract of lease-according to the aggregate amount of the fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term; (d) of an award-according to the amount or value of the property in dispute; between landlord and tenant.- (xi) In the following suits between landlord and tenant :- (a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of lease, (b) to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy, (c) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease, '[(cc) for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy,] (d) to contest a' notice of ejectment. (e) to recover the occupancy of [immovable property] from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord, and (f) for abatement of rent according to the amount of the rent of the [immovable property] to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. 8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain suits.—Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), section 7, paragraphs v, vi and ix, and paragraph x, clause (d), Court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. 8. That plaintiff claimed first relief that after execution of sale agreement dated 23.4.2001 and putting him in to possession he has acquired the title by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration simplicitor, but he is also claiming that defendants be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff which is consequential relief. This consequential relief cannot be granted to him unless relief of declaration is granted in his favour. The relief of injunction is consequential to the declaratory relief sought by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit would fall in section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act. That for declaration he valued the suit 20 time to the land revenue, hence he has to pay ad valorem court-fee on the said amount to get decree of injunction and under section 8 that would decide the jurisdiction of the Court also. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.K.Ghosh v. Dhruv Kumar Haryani and another, reported in 2011 (4) MPLJ 493 , has held as under : Section 7(iv)(c) provides for a declaratory decree and consequential relief. Section 7 (iv)(d) provides a decree for an injunction. The section provides that in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount on which he values the relief sought. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act specifically provides that where any suit other than those provides that court-fees valued and jurisdictional value shall be the same, except those which are referred in paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix) of section 7 of the Court-fees Act. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act specifically provides that where any suit other than those provides that court-fees valued and jurisdictional value shall be the same, except those which are referred in paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix) of section 7 of the Court-fees Act. The present suit is undoubtedly covered under section 7(iv)(c) or (d) and in both the conditions the plaintiff has to value suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fees same. 8. Section 7(iv)(d) also provides that to obtain an injunction, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the reliefs sought. In this case for encroached area the plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs.39,750/, but has paid fixed court-fees of Rs.500/-, while as per section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act ad valorem court-fees is required. So far as fixed court-fees on the relief of injunction is concerned it is governed by Article 17 of Schedule-II, which provides as under :- The aforesaid Article specifically provides that to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed, fixed court-fees is provided. Similarly where it is not possible to estimate at a money-value of the subject-matter in dispute, fixed court-fees is provided. 9. But in the present case, the plaintiff has put valuation in respect of property by which, petitioner is seeking relief of mandatory injunction. When the plaintiff himself has put the valuation of property and sought a relief of mandatory injunction, then as per the valuation put by the plaintiff he was required to make payment of ad valorem court-fee. In view of above judgment relief of mandatory injunction is not independent relief but a consequential relief for which plaintiff is required to put a proper valuation of suit and to make payment of ad valorem court-fee. 9. So far the declaration that sale deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 dated 30.3.2013 is void and not binding on plaintiff is concerned, plaintiff has properly valued the suit 20 times to the land revenue and he is not required to pay the court-fees as he is in possession and seeking the relief of declaration simplicitor. The suit is to be valued under section 7(iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and fixed court-fee would be paid. 10. The suit is to be valued under section 7(iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and fixed court-fee would be paid. 10. That Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil v. Awadh Narayan (supra), has held that when plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding and a declaration simplicitor is prayed then he is not required to pay ad valorem court-fee and fixed court-fee under Article 17 of Schedule-II of the Court-fees Act would be payable. Paras-13 and 15 of the aforesaid Full Bench order is reproduced below : 13. Now in the light of aforesaid settled position by the apex Court and Full Bench of this Court, the first question referred by the Division Bench may be examined. When the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, and if a declaration simplicitor is prayed then he is not required to pay ad valorem court-fee and a fixed court-fee under Article 17, Schedule-II of the court-fees Act will be payable. This position is well settled by the apex Court in Ningawwa (supra), and continued till the decision in Sneh Gupta (supra). The void document which is not binding upon the plaintiff needs to be avoided and in this regard a declaration is sufficient. The Full Bench of this Court Santoshchandra (supra), has clarified the position and we respectfully agree with the law laid down by the Full Bench in Santoshchandra (supra). 15. Now second question may be seen in respect of the judgment rendered in Narayan Singh (supra). In Narayan Singh, the plaintiffs had filed suit with the averment that the sale deed in question was illegal and void. It was a forged document and also without consideration. The plaintiffs were in possession of the land, a relief for declaration was prayed and a fixed court-fee was paid. The defendants moved an application under Order 7, rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint on the ground that though the plaintiffs has assailed the sale deed but had not paid ad valorem court-fee which ought to have been paid. The trial Court had rejected the application which order was assailed before the Division Bench. The defendants moved an application under Order 7, rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint on the ground that though the plaintiffs has assailed the sale deed but had not paid ad valorem court-fee which ought to have been paid. The trial Court had rejected the application which order was assailed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the case of the plaintiffs was that the document was a forged one and it does not bear the signature of Sitaram though Sitaram was party to the sale deed. Plaintiffs had claimed their possession over the suit land. The suit was for permanent injunction and declaration. When the document was alleged to be illegal, void and executant had not signed the document, it was not necessary for them to make payment of ad valorem court-fee. The document in the plaint was shown to be void and not voidable, so ad valorem court-fee was not required and a fixed court-fee was found to be adequate. The Division Bench further held that if the document, as per averments made in the plaint, is pleaded to be a void document so it is not necessary for plaintiffs to avoid document by claiming relief to set aside and a fixed court-fee under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act was sufficient. In the light of the discussion, while deciding the question No.1, we have also held so and accordingly we find that the law laid down by the Division Bench in Narayan Singh (supra), has been correctly laid down. 11. Admittedly, plaintiff is seeking declaratory decree and mandatory injunction against the defendant, therefore, he has to value the suit and pay the fixed court-fee under Article 17 Schedule-II of the Court-fees Act. 12. Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that there is no basis to value the suit at Rs.2,75,000/- because the title claimed by the plaintiff is based on the deed dated 4.6.2000. The plaintiff is required to value the suit under section 7(iv)(c)(d) of the Court-fees Act for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, trial Court has committed error while allowing the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 30.7.2014 is hereby set aside.