ORDER 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.2.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2016 whereby the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The contentions of the petitioners is that the respondents have filed a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiffs be declared as Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No. 1119 area being 1.01 hectare and are also entitled to record their names in the revenue papers. They have further sought the relief of injunction by way of amendment in the plaint. The plaintiffs further sought the relief for declaration to the effect that, the sale deed dated 13.2.2002 be declared void and ineffective. The application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been filed saying that the plaintiff being successor of Hargovind and after his death they have succeeded the property, the relief which has been prayed by the plaintiffs in the civil suit reflects that the plaintiffs have sought for declaration as well as declaration of sale deed dated 13.2.2002 null and void, executed by Hargovind in favour of the petitioners stating that the suit property was obtained by Hargovind in Patta from the government, hence the same could not have been transferred. He has further sought the relief for declaring the sale deed 13.2.2002 null and void and has further prayed for entering their names in the revenue records. Thus, on such relief, the plaintiffs are required to pay ad-valorem Court fees. The provisions of section 7 (iv) c of schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870. are applicable for computation of the fees payable in the present case. Thus, he has filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC and has prayed for dismissal of the civil suit. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiffs saying that they are not signatory of the sale deed, therefore, they are not bound to pay ad-valorem Court fees and has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum and ors. reported in 2010 (I) MPWN 32 = 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 and has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with the further direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to pay Ad-valorem Court fees. 3. reported in 2010 (I) MPWN 32 = 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 and has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with the further direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to pay Ad-valorem Court fees. 3. The respondents by placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Manish Parashar v. Pratap reported in 2018 (2) RN 80 =2018 (4) MPLJ 439 have contended that they are not the executant of the sale deed and does not have their signatures on the sale deed, therefore are not required to pay ad valorem Court fee. The order is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 4. Heard the rival parties and perused the record. 5. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have contended that the property in question was owned by his father Hargovind and after death of Hargovind, by way of succession he has inherited the property. He has further stated in the plaint that by virtue of succession, his name has also been mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiffs have further contended that by playing fraud and manipulating the records, the defendants/petitioners have got the land transferred in their name. He has further stated in the plaint that by virtue of succession, his name has also been mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiffs have further contended that by playing fraud and manipulating the records, the defendants/petitioners have got the land transferred in their name. The plaintiffs have prayed for the following declaration in the suit : lgk;rk ¼v½ ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd oknhx.k xzke VksM+k fiNksj rglhy djsjk esa fLFkr d`f"k Hkwfe losZ uEcj] 1119] jdok 1-01 gsDVj yxkuh 1 :i;k ds HkwfeLokeh o vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSaA rnuqlkj jktLo vfHkys[k esa viuk uke HkwfeLokeh dh gSfl;r ls ntZ djkus ds vfËkdkjh gSaA ¼c½ ;g fd ck<+xzLr vkjkth ij izfroknhx.k Øekad 1 o 2 ,oa izfroknhx.k Øekad 3 o 4 ds firk LoxhZ; j?kqohj ds uke ntZ HkwfeLokeh dh izfo"Vh QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr rFkk voS/kkfud gksus ls 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh gSA ;g fd rFkk dfFkr i= fnukad 13-2-2002 QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr ,ao 'kkldh; iV~Vs dh Hkwfe dk gksus ls fof/k fo:) gksus ls ,oa foØ; ls oftZr Hkwfe dk gksus ls 'kwU; ,ao fu"izHkkoh gSA ¼l½ izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk }kjk fu"ksf/kr fd;k tkos fd og oknhx.k ds 'kkafr iw.kZ vkf/kiR; esa d`f"k dk;Z esa mi;ksx o miHkksx esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls gLr{ksi u rks Lo;a djs vkSj u vius ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ls ;k vU; ls djkosaA ¼n½ bl okn dk okn O;; oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA o vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gks og Hkh fnyk;h tkosA** 6. The plaintiffs who have stepped into the shoes of their father and have inherited the property by virtue of succession and the relief of declaration of title and declaration of sale deed as null and void amounts to cancellation of sale deed is being sought, therefore they are liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees. 7. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of section 7(iv) clause c of Court Fees Act 1870 are applicable. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs have inherited the property by way of succession after death of their father and the same will remain binding upon them. It is further seen that without claiming the relief of cancellation of sale deed, the plaintiffs could not have sought for any declaration. 8. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs have inherited the property by way of succession after death of their father and the same will remain binding upon them. It is further seen that without claiming the relief of cancellation of sale deed, the plaintiffs could not have sought for any declaration. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and ors, reported in 1973 SC 2364 has considered the similar situations and has held that : “although the relief was couched in a declaratory form, the same was in substance a suit either for setting aside the decree or for a declaration with a consequential relief of injunction restraining the decree holder from executing the decree against the mortgaged property. It was further found that unless the decree was set aside, it would have remained executable against the son and it was essential for the son to ask for setting aside the decree.” 9. The aforesaid analogy of the case of Shamsher Singh (supra) is fully applicable in the present case, Thus, considering the aforesaid, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The respondents/plaintiffs are directed to pay Ad valorem Court fees on the valuation of the sale deed. The trial Court is directed to grant reasonable time to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit Court fees before proceeding into the matter further on merits. 10. The petition stands allowed. No order as to the cost.