ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. 1. Petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2019 whereby application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been dismissed. Facts of the case are as under:- 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 being the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, possession and means profit against the present petitioners/defendants. Shobharam had a son - Mansharam and daughter -Mathurabai. The plaintiffs are sons and daughters of Mathurabai, who got married with Chhogalal in Village Bamnala, Tehsil Bhikangaon, District Khargone. She died on 9.1.2002. Mansharam got married to Smt. Shantabai and both died issueless. Mansharam was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 7/2/1 area 1.902 Hect. land revenue 17.38 Paise, out of which, he sold 0.010 Hect. of land to Badribai and remained owner of balance land i.e. 1.892 Hect. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") till his death. He was also the owner of the house, but he donated the same during his lifetime. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Mansharam and Shantabai, being the sons of Smt. Mathurabai, they have become the owner of the suit land by way of succession. Shantabai died on 14.7.2017 and the plaintiffs performed all the rights and rituals. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 and 2 based on forged Will of Mansharam got mutated their name in the revenue record. The plaintiffs objected but the Tehsildar passed the order in their favour. Thereafter, they preferred an appeal but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 9.10.2018, against which the appeal is pending before the Additional Commissioner. After mutation, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, have sold the suit land to defendant vide registered sale-deed dated 24.8.2018. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming a declaration that they are the exclusive owner of the suit land and the sale-deed dated 24.8.2018 is void and not binding on them and defendants be directed to handover the possession of the suit land to them and the respondents be further restrained not to alienate the suit land. 3. The petitioners/defendants appeared and filed a reply to the application for the temporary injunction. 3. The petitioners/defendants appeared and filed a reply to the application for the temporary injunction. Thereafter, they also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit and liable to pay ad valorem court-fees as per the value of the suit land as per sale-deed. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs and vide order dated 4.5.2019, learned trial Court has rejected the application, hence the present petition before this Court. 4. Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants, has submitted that according to the plaintiffs, the suit land is an ancestral property jointly owned by Mansharam and Mathurabai. After the death of Mansharam and his wife - Shantabai, the plaintiffs being legal heirs of Mathurabai are entitled to get the suit land under succession. Thus, the plaintiffs are claiming the right over the suit land by way of succession through their mother - Mathurabai, therefore, sale-deed dated 24.8.2018 is binding on them. Even if they are not party or executant of the sale-deed, they are bound by such document and the relief to the effect that the sale-deed is void, amounts to the relief of cancellation of the sale-deed, hence they are liable to pay court-fees as per the value of the property mentioned in the sale-deed. Learned trial Court has wrongly placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Surhid Singh v. Randhirsingh, AIR 2010 SC 2807 , in which, the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Court Fees Act, as amended by the Government of Punjab, but such an amendment is not applicable in the State of M.R Hence, by virtue of Section 7(iv), the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem Court-fees as they are seeking consequential relief of cancellation of sale-deed dated 24.8.2018. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad : (1973) 2 SCC 524 . 5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad : (1973) 2 SCC 524 . 5. Per contra, Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs, argued that the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale-deed and they are claiming that the said sale-deed is void and not binding on them. Once they are declared as the owner of the suit land, then the aforesaid declaration would be a consequential relief. Hence, as per the law laid down in the case of Surhid Singh (supra), the plaintiffs are not liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees based on the value of the property in the sale-deed. However, the plaintiffs have paid the court-fees twenty times to the land revenue as per Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Teerathraj Agarwal v. Smt. Savitribai, 1992 (2) MPWN 189 ; Gomatiprasad v. Mahesh Singh, AIR 2017 (MP) 125 ; and Ramkumar Singhai v. Komal Prasad, 2018 RN 230 . He further submits that the issue raised by the petitioners in respect of valuation is a mixed question of fact and law and which can only be decided after the evidence is adduced before the Court, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is correct that the plaintiffs are claiming the title over the suit land by way of succession through their mother - Mathurabai. The suit land was initially owned by Mansharam. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was ancestral property recorded in the name of Mansharam and Mathurabai jointly and since Mansharam and Shantabai have died issueless, therefore, by way of natural succession, they being the legal heirs of Mathurabai are entitled to get their name mutated in the revenue record. The plaintiffs were aware of the execution of the Will by Mansharam in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 despite that, they have not challenged the Will. By virtue of the Will, names of defendant Nos. The plaintiffs were aware of the execution of the Will by Mansharam in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 despite that, they have not challenged the Will. By virtue of the Will, names of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had been mutated in the revenue record and thereafter, they had sold the suit land to defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs by way of the suit are only seeking me reliefs declaration of title and declaration of the sale-deed 24.8.2018 as void. 7. In the case of Shamsher Singh (supra), the suit was filed by a son for the declaration that the mortgage decree obtained against his father was not binding upon him, in such situation the Apex Court has held that it is essential for the son to ask for setting aside of the decree as a consequence of the declaration claimed and to pay ad valorem court-fees u/S. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The decree against the father is a good decree against the son and unless the decree is set aside, it would remain executable against the son and the son needs to ask for setting aside the decree. Therefore, given the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, when the plaintiffs are claiming title over the suit land by way of succession, then the sale-deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 under Will in their favour is binding on the plaintiffs and they are required to seek a decree for setting aside of the sale-deed as a consequential relief and for which they are liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees u/S. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. 8. In the case of Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum, 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 , the similar issue again came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in which also the plaintiffs were claiming that the suit property has been devolved upon them after the death of Sabdar Hussain, the Hon'ble DB has held that, if the registered sale-deed executed by Sabdar Hussain on 24.4.2007 is not avoided, the suit property cannot be treated as available for devolution on plaintiffs., thus, it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to seek the cancellation or avoidance of the sale-deed. Although relief clause is couched in declaratory form, relief of avoidance and/or cancellation is implied in the declaratory relief contained in the plaint. Although relief clause is couched in declaratory form, relief of avoidance and/or cancellation is implied in the declaratory relief contained in the plaint. Therefore, in the light of the decision passed in the case of Israt Jahan (supra), the plaintiffs are liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees on the valuation of the sale-deed. Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: "13. Contrary to this, it is found in the present case that according to the plaint averments themselves, the suit property was owned by Sabdar Hussain, who was husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7. It allegedly devolved upon the plaintiffs after death of Sabdar Hussain. In case, if the registered sale deed executed by Sabdar Hussain on 24-4-2007 is not avoided, the suit property cannot be treated as available for devolution on plaintiffs. Thus, it is obligatory on the part of plaintiffs to seek the cancellation or avoidance of the said sale deed. Although relief clause is couched in declaratory form, the relief of avoidance and/or cancellation is implied in the declaratory relief contained in plaint. This being so, the case of the plaintiff is found squarely covered by the Apex Court decision in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra). The impugned order is thus not found sustainable in law. The same is hereby set aside. Plaintiffs are directed to pay ad valorem Court fees on the valuation of the sale deed. Trial Court shall grant reasonable time to pay the deficit Court fees before proceeding further on merits in accordance with law. Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid manner." 9. So far as applicability of judgment passed in the case of Surhid Singh (supra) is concerned, Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, is correct in contending that in that case, the issue of court-fees was considered in view of the amendment in the Court Fees Act by the State of Punjab and as per the second proviso to Section 7(iv)(c) that in a suit coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought 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 this Section. He submits that in the State of M.P. there is no such proviso in Section 7(iv)(c), therefore, as per Section 7(iv)(c), the plaintiffs are liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees. Para 5 of the judgment in the case of Surhid Singh is reproduced below: "5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab 'Act' 'for short). Section 6 requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in the First and Second Schedules to the Act shall be filed in any court, unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs. 19/50 on plaints in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for. But where the suit is for a declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fee thereon is governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which provides: "7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits : The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: (iv) in suits - x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought: Provided that minimum court-fee in each shall be thirteen rupees. Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought 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 this section." It is clear from the second proviso that the suit coming under sub-clause (c) in respect of any property, then the valuation of the property shall be calculated in a manner provided for by Clause (v) of this Section. Section 7(iv)(c) and Section 7(v) applicable in the State of M.P. Are reproduced below: "7(iv)(c) In suits-to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, -(c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed." "(v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens- according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be-" where the subject-matter is land, and - where the subject-matter is land, and-" (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled-ten times the revenue so payable; and such revenue is permanently settled- ten times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently- five times the revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint- fifteen times such net profits; but where no such net profits have arisen therefrom-the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above-mentioned-the market-value of the land." 10. As per Section 7(iv)(c), the suit for the declaratory decree and consequential relief, ad valorem court-fees is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. As per Section 7(v) in a suit for possession of land, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject-matter and such value shall be deemed to be 10 times the revenue so payable to the Government. As per Section 7(v) in a suit for possession of land, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject-matter and such value shall be deemed to be 10 times the revenue so payable to the Government. Since in the State of M.P., there is no second proviso to Section 7(iv)(c) like in the State of Punjab, therefore, the plaintiffs are required to value the suit as per the relief claimed u/s. 7(iv)(c) and for the relief claimed u/s. 7(v) separately, because the valuation of subject-matter shall be different. 11. In the present case, the plaintiffs are seeking the relief for the declaratory decree and also consequential relief which shall be governed u/s. 7(iv)(c) and for the decree of the possession of the land which shall be governed u/s. 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and for each relief, they are required to value the suit and to pay the court-fees accordingly. For the relief of possession of the land, the plaintiffs have already paid the court-fees 10 times to the land revenue. The only dispute is in respect of the court-fees for the relief of declaration and consequential relief. As per Section 7(iv)(c), in a suit for the declaratory decree and consequential relief, the valuation of the suit shall be according to the amount and the relief sought in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. The plaintiffs are seeking the relief of declaration that they be declared as owners of the suit land by way of succession and the sale-deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared void and not binding on them. As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Israt Jahan (supra), the plaintiffs are required to seek cancellation or avoidance of the sale-deed even though they have couched the relief like declaration and the said sale-deed is binding on them. Therefore, they are liable to value the suit and to pay the ad valorem Court fees based on the value of the property mentioned in the sale-deed. 12. Because of the foregoing discussion, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass an appropriate order for valuation of the suit and payment of court- fees accordingly. No order as to costs.