ORDER 1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the learned 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna in Civil Suit No. 91A/2012 (Nirmalchand Jain and others v. Chakresh Kumar Jain and others) whereby the petitioners were called upon to pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the residential house situate at Seat No. 47D, Plot No. 116, Old Power House, District Satna having area of 1873 Square Feet. 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners sought a declaration that the house in question is a Joint Hindu Family property and also sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs claim to be in possession as well. The valuation of the suit was Rs. 5000/- for the relief of declaration; and Rs. 500/- for the relief of injunction. 3. The learned trial Court passed an order that the court fees is not payable in terms of Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (for short “the Act”) as the property in question is a residential house for which no land revenue is fixed. Therefore, ad valorem Court fee on the market value is to be affixed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of Gwalior Bench of this Court reported as 2017 (2) JLJ 389 = AIR 2017 MP 125 (Gomatiprasad and another v. Mahesh Singh and others) wherein the Court has relied upon two Full Bench judgments of this Court reported as 1967 JLJ 350 = AIR 1967 MP 221 (Baldeo Singh Raghuraj Singh v. Gopal Singh Raghuraj Singh and others) and 1970 JLJ 290 = AIR 1971 MP 1 (FB) (Santoshchandra and others v. Smt. Gyansundarbai and others); to hold as under : “13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Harinarayan v. Gulabchandra [ 2011 (4) MPLJ 447 ], has also taken the same view, therefore, it is clear that petitioners/plaintiffs who are seeking relief of “Declaration Simplicitor” wherein the sale deeds executed by their father/respondent No. 4 are not binding over them and therefore, attracts Fixed Court Fee as per Article 17 Scheduled II of the Act and not as per section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. *** *** *** 17. *** *** *** 17. Here in the present case petitioners/plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the plaint that they are in possession of the suit property, therefore, they are not claiming the relief of possession, they only sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Therefore, relief of permanent injunction can be independently sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs and is not the consequential to the relief of declaration. Relief of permanent injunction can be treated as 'Substantial Relief' and not as consequential relief, therefore, from the fact situation of the case it is clear that the plaintiffs have not sought any consequential relief so as to attract the effect of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act.” 5. In the aforesaid decision, the learned Single Bench also considered a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1973 SC 2384 (Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others) wherein the challenge was to a sale deed executed by a Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It was held that the same is binding on the plaintiffs and if the plaintiffs seek relief of declaration then it is virtually a relief of annulment of mortgage deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have to pay ad valorem Court fee. 6. However, in the present case, the plaintiffs are not challenging any document but claiming simpliciter declaration that they are owners of the property in question. Since the plaintiffs are claiming to be in possession and are claiming simpliciter declaration without any consequential relief, the appropriate court fee is as per Article 17, Schedule-II of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed.