JUDGMENT AND ORDER : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2016 vide which the court below while deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the court fees payable, the plaint as a whole has to be read by the court. The plaint in this particular case was for declaration and injunction with a relief for cancellation of sale deed. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff is in a possession, therefore, the court fees as filed by the plaintiff was sufficient and there was no reason for directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fees in accordance with Section 38 of the court fees and Suit Valuation Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to Section 24 of the Act. More particularly clause (b) which reads as under :- Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of twenty rupees. 5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with Section 24 of the Act, court fee has been paid by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was not a party to the sale deed which he seeks to get cancelled, and therefore, the court below has erred in directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay court fee on the valuation of the property. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sukh Lal & Ors. v. Devi Lal & Ors. AIR 1954 Rajasthan 170 (Vol. 41, C.N. 52 (1), wherein the Court observed as under :- Now, we have no doubt that in order to determine the proper court-fee payable on a plaint in a particular case, the true principle is that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that it is the substance of the plaint and not its ostensible form which really matters. It is true further that caution must be observed so that nothing is imported into the plaint, which it really does not contain either actually or by necessary implication. It is also well established that in construing the plaint, the court must take the plaint as it is and not as it ought to have been (Vide - 'Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal' AIR 1932 All 485 (FB) (A) and 'Mt. Rupia v. Bhatu Mahton', AIR 1944 Pat 17 (FB) (B). There is a difference between a suit for the cancellation and one for a declaration that the instrument is not binding on the plaintiff. When the plaintiff seeks to establish a title in himself and cannot establish that title without removing an insuperable obstacle such as a decree or a deed to which he has been a party or by which he is otherwise bound then quite clearly he must get that decree or deed cancelled or declared void in to and his suit is in substance a suit for the cancellation of the decree for deed notwithstanding the fact that the suit may have been, framed as a suit for a declaration. On the other hand, when the plaintiff is seeking to establish a title and finds himself threatened by a decree or a transaction between third parties, he is not in a position to get that decree or deed cancelled in to. The proper remedy in such a case is to get a declaration that the decree or deed is invalid so far as he himself is concerned, and, therefore, he may sue for a declaration to that effect and not for the cancellation of the decree or the deed. See- 'Vellayya Konar v. Ramaswami Konar', AIR 1939 Mad 894 (C). 7. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Makhan Lal and another v. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City and another, AIR 1978 Rajasthan 123, wherein the Court in a suit for declaring a sale deed as void and ineffective and for delivery of possession valued the suit at market value of property and held that ad valorem court-fees is payable. 8. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that since in that suit there was a prayer for possession, the ad valorem court-fees on the valuation of property was payable but since in the present case, there is no prayer for possession. 8. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that since in that suit there was a prayer for possession, the ad valorem court-fees on the valuation of property was payable but since in the present case, there is no prayer for possession. There was no question of directing the petitioner to pay the court-fees on the value of the property. 9. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently opposed the revision petition. It is contended that the suit has to be valued in accordance with Section 38 of the Act and the court below has not committed any illegality in directing the petitioner to pay court fees on the valuation of the property. 10. Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on Rameshwar Prasad @ Pappu v. Ramkalyan, 2014 (3) WLN 426 (Raj.) wherein the Court observed that where there is suit for cancellation of the gift deed. The court-fees has to be paid in accordance with the provisions contain in Section 38 of the Act. 11. Counsel for the defendant has also placed reliance on Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj v. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors., 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 392, wherein the Court observed that the plaintiff is required to pay valuation of each reliefs separately and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fees is insufficient, court may direct the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fees. 12. Counsel for the defendant has also placed reliance on Lrs. of Surja Ram & Ors. v. Lrs. of Asha Ram & Ors., 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 818, wherein the suit was filed for declaration and injunction but a prayer for cancellation of sale deed was also made in the suit. The court held that such suit would fall within the purview of Section 38 of the Act. 13. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned order and the relevant provisions of the Act. 14. Section 24 of the Act pertains to suit for declaration and if in the suit for declaration, a prayer for declaration and consequential injunction is made with reference to any immovable property, court-fee is to be computed on one-half of the market value of the property. To that extent, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted. Section 24 of the Act pertains to suit for declaration and if in the suit for declaration, a prayer for declaration and consequential injunction is made with reference to any immovable property, court-fee is to be computed on one-half of the market value of the property. To that extent, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted. Since, suit is for declaration and injunction, the court-fees is required to be paid in accordance with Section 24 of the Act. But in the present case, in the suit it self there is furthers a prayer for cancellation of sale deed. 15. Section 38 deals with suit for cancellation of decrees etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 reads as under :- In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fees shall be computed on the value of the subject matter in the suit. Since the present suit is for cancellation of a sale deed, the fee is required to be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit. 16. Section 38 nowhere differentiates between a plaintiff in possession and plaintiff claiming possession. From bare perusal of the plaint, more particularly Para 17, wherein the plaintiff has pleaded that the patta and consequential sale deed be declared null void in the relief clause also. The plaintiff has sought a relief for cancellation of the patta and sale deed. The suit was, therefore, a suit for cancellation of sale deed along with declaration and injunction. 17. AIR 1954 Rajasthan 170, Sukh Lal & Ors. v. Devi Lal & Ors. referred to by counsel for the petitioner wherein the Court has observed that if the plaintiff seeks to establish a title in himself and cannot establish that title without removing an insuperable obstacle such as a decree or a deed then he must get that decree or deed cancelled or declared void in to and his suit is a such for cancellation of the deed notwithstanding the fact that the suit may have been framed as a suit for a declaration. 18. In Makhan Lal & Anr. v. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City & Anr. 18. In Makhan Lal & Anr. v. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City & Anr. (Supra) wherein the Court has observed that if the plaintiff was a party to the sale deed then the court-fee would have been payable under Section 38 but where the party plaintiff was not a party, court-fees shall be payable under Section 24 of the Act. 19. To my mind, the ruling filed by the petitioner do not support the petitioner as the plaintiff in his plaint has clearly mentioned that a Patta was allotted in favour of the defendant by the Municipality and on the basis of that Patta, a sale deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the other defendant. The claim of the plaintiff was, therefore, for cancellation of the Patta as well as the sale deed. 20. Sukh Lal v. Devi Lal (Supra) cited by the plaintiff supports the defendants' claim as the relief which plaintiff wants is to get cancelled patta and sale deed. The cancellation of the patta and sale deed becomes necessary and the obstacle is insuperable without which he cannot claim the relief which he has sought and therefore, the suit has to be valued as per Section 38 of the Act. 21. It is true that while deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The pleading in the plaint has to be read as a whole. 22. I have gone through the pleadings in the plaint and reading the pleadings as a whole. It is made out that the suit is for cancellation of a Patta and sale deed and therefore, the suit has to be valued on the market value of the property as held in Lrs. Of Surja Ram & Ors. v. Lrs. Of Asha Ram & Ors. (Supra) and Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj v. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. (Supra). 23. No illegality has been committed by the court below in directing the plaintiff to pay the court-fees on the valuation of the property as the matter squarely falls within the ambit of Section 38 of the Act. No ground is made out for entertaining the revision petition. 24. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed.