JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2020 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Didwana, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff - respondent inter alia for cancellation of the sale deed dated 1.12.2017 to the extent of his share, declaration, permanent injunction and partition. 3. It was inter alia claimed in the plaint that the property was purchased on 17.5.1982 in the name of defendant No.1 while the parties were in joint family and that the same was purchased out of joint family funds. The properties were partitioned on 23.2.1984, however, as the property in question was purchased on 17.5.1982 in the name of defendant No.1, who was Karta Khandan ¼drkZ [kkunku½ and sale deed was executed on 1.12.2017, wherein, the share of the plaintiff was also transferred, the same to the extent of plaintiff's share was void. Submissions were also made that by way of partition, which has already entered into between the parties, the property indicated in Schedule-A came to the share of the plaintiff. Based on the said submissions, relief was sought for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction. 4. An application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia indicating that the suit has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed, permanent injunction and partition, the same has been valued at Rs.2,75,000/- and court fee of Rs. 18,750/- has been paid, whereas the suit property was valued at Rs.5,41,000/-, for which, no court fee has been paid and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 5. The application was contested by the plaintiff. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit was for declaration and not for cancellation and based on the said aspect, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner had made submissions regarding the valuation of the suit being incorrect, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has sought several reliefs and each relief was required to be valued separately and once the valuation was done properly, the trial court, where the suit was filed, would have lost its jurisdiction and as such the rejection of the application is not justified. 8. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. The plaintiff based on the submissions noticed hereinbefore had claimed the following reliefs:- 10. A perusal of the plaint averments and the reliefs claimed clearly indicates that the plaintiff had indicated that the property in question had already been partitioned between the parties and he indicated his share in Schedule-A and based on the said submissions, sought the reliefs of cancellation of the sale deed to the extent of his share, declaration of his ownership and further declaration that the land possessed by him under Schedule-A was part of his partitioned land and permanent injunction. 11. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as relief of partition was sought, valuation even to the extent of plaintiff's share was required to be added to the valuation already made, cannot be accepted in view of the relief, which has been claimed i.e. declaration regarding the fact that the plaintiff was already in possession of duly partitioned property indicated in Schedule-A, he had not sought any partition as his case was that the property already stood partitioned between the parties and he was already in possession of property, which came to his share post partitioned and as such the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner in the revision petition, though apparently not raised before the trial court, has no substance. 12. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.