JUDGMENT : DR. A.K. RATH, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khurda in C.S. No.134 of 2011, whereby learned trial court allowed the application of the defendant nos.2 and 3 and directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly, which has nexus with the market value of the property. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that the R.S.D. dated 11.12.2009 and 25.10.2010 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 are obtained by fraud and not binding upon the plaintiff and permanent injunction impleading the opposite parties as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of notice, defendant no.1 entered appearance and filed written statement-cum-counter claim. Defendant nos.2 and 3 also filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, defendant nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit. The plaintiff filed objection to the said application. Learned trial court directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly, which has nexus with the market value of the property. 3. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed nor sought any declaration to the suit schedule property. Thus the direction of the learned trial court to pay the ad-valorem court fee is not proper. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 submitted that the suit has not been properly valued. In view of the same, learned trial court directed the plaintiff to value the suit and pay court fees. 6. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 , the apex Court held thus: “6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' --two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non-est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7. 7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7. 7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that, therefore, court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds.” 7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra), the inescapable conclusion is that when a non-executant is not in possession and seeks a declaration that deed is null and void and is not binding on him, he has to pay the court fee under Sec.7(iv)(c)of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. 8. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deeds. There is no prayer to cancel the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee is computable under Sec.7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. 9. In the wake of aforesaid, the order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.); Khurda in C.S. No.134 of 2011 is quashed. The petition is allowed. No costs.