ORDER : In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 24-6-2017 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 18A/2015, whereby application filed by the respondent No. 1/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code has been allowed and the trial Court has directed petitioners/plaintiffs to file ad valorem Court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short “the Act”). 2. Facts leading to filing of this case are that a suit has been filed by petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction and also for declaring the Will executed in favour of defendant No. 1 as null and void and for consequential cancellation of mutation recorded in favour of defendant No. 1. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are already in possession of the suit property being co-owners, therefore, declaration and permanent injunction has been sought in the suit. It is further contended that plaintiffs are not executants of the document (Will) and also not seeking possession of the property in question. Therefore, Court fee is not payable in terms of section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the property as claimed by respondents/defendants. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Sunil Radhelia v. Awadh Narayan, 2010 (4) M.P.LJ. (F.B.) 431 : (2010 (III) MPJR (FB) 412 and that of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that since petitioners/plaintiffs have prayed for consequential relief, therefore, section 7(iv)(c) of the Act would be applicable. According to him, petitioners/plaintiffs have sought declaration and permanent injunction and also that the Will executed in favour of defendants be declared null and void and further for setting aside mutation in favour of defendant No. 1. Therefore, they are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee and, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, no interference with the order impugned is warranted. Therefore, they are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee and, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, no interference with the order impugned is warranted. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in Ravishankar v. Satyanarayan, 2017 (2) M.P.L.J. 562 : 2017 (1) MPWN 64 contending that for consequential relief plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 6. While considering the question of payment of Court fee, allegations as contained in the plaint have to be seen. Plaintiff cannot be permitted to mould the facts and circumstances and the real intention and if it transpires that intention of the plaintiff was something different than what has been claimed, the Court cannot overlook it. In the present case, plaintiffs have sought a declaratory relief and also aim at setting aside the Will and mutation. The prayer of the plaintiffs to get the mutation done in favour of respondent No. 1 set aside, is a consequential relief. Under such circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly held that when consequential relief is sought, then ad valorem Court fee is payable. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code filed by defendant No. 1. The judgments in the case of Sunil Radhelia (supra) and Suhrid Singh (supra), being distinguishable on facts, are of no assistance to the petitioner. The petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.