D.V. Sehgal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision petitions Nos. 3628 and 3629 of 1987. Both of them are directed against similar orders passed by the Learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra in two separate suits, vide which it had directed the plaintiffpetitioner to pay court fee advalorem on the consideration stipulated in the impugned sale - deeds which are the subject-matter of challenge in suits filed by him.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to Civil Revision No. 3628 of 1987 are that agricultural land measuring 33 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 19/ 2, min, Khatoni No. 25/2, detailed in para 2 of the plaint was mortgaged with possession by the petitioners in favour Sat Pal and Ram Ditta, defendant -respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide mortgage deed dated 5.3.1974. Again, agricultural land measuring 25 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 19 min Khatauni No. 25 min, Khasra No. 39/21(8-0), 40/24/2(1-12), 50/4(8-0), 50-5(8-0), situated at village Mirjapur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, is alleged to have been sold by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 20.2.1978 in favour of Smt. Chander Kanta, defendant-respondent No. 1, who is the wife of respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleges that the said sale deed is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. He intended to create additional mortgage and not sale. He, therefore, attacked the validity of the said sale deed on various grounds.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court was wrong in directing the petitioner to pay advalorem court-fee as if the petitioner was seeking cancellation of the said sale deed dated 20.2.1978. He submits that the petitioner was simply seeking a declaration to the effect that the sale deed is void and is the result of fraud and mis-representation. He intended to create an additional mortgage on the land which is the subject-matter of the said sale deed and not to sell the same. He relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Sheel Kumar v. Aditya Narain and Anr. 1964 PLR 916, and contended that where the suit is for mere declaration on the allegation that the transaction is a sham one entered into with ulterior purpose, the prayer for cancellation of the document is a surplusage and can be ignored for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction because once it is declared that the deed is a sham one and is void nothing remains to be cancelled. The Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nifbigan Kaur (Minor), 1981 Revenue Law Reporter 428, to defend the order passed by the Learned trial court. In Nirahjan Kaurs case (supra), it has been held that in deciding the question of court-fee the court should look into the allegations made in the plaint to find out what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. Where the main relief is that of the cancellation of the deed, and the declaration if any, is only a surplusage, the case would not be covered under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court fees Act, because in a suit under that clause, the main relief is that of a declaration and the consequential relief is just ancillary. Section 7(iv)(c) clearly contemplates suits to obtain the declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed.

4. 1 am of the considered view that in the instant suit the substantive relief claimed is that of the cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner, himself being a party to the sale deed, could not sue for a mere declaration that the sale deed was fraudulent and that respondent No. 1 has not acquired any title there under. The sale deed has to be cancelled. Otherwise, title in the land has already passed to respondent No. 1 under it. The petitioner has to get the sale deed, to which he is a party, cancelled. I am bound by the judgment of the Full Bench in Niranjan Kaurs case (supra) and the view that I have taken is consistent with the law laid down therein.

5. I, therefore, find no merit in these revision petitions which are consequently dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

6. The parties through their Learned Counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 17.10.1988 when further proceedings in accordance with law shall be taken.