K.S. Sidhu, J.
1. This petition of revision by the plaintiff under Section 115, C. P. C. has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The plaintiff, Dinesh Kumar, brought a suit against the defendant. Ram Sahai, for a declaration that he is the adopted son of Ram Sahai and as such entitled to an equal share with the defendant in the coparcenary property described in detail in para 4 of the plaint. He stated the value of the said property to be Rs. 2,70,000/- and paid a court-fee of Rs. 500/- in all. The value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was stated to be Rs. 2,70,000/-.
3. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement in answer to it. One of the preliminary objections raised by the defendant is that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient.
4. By its order, dated March 23, 1979, the trial Court upheld this objection, and directed the plaintiff to pay court-fee, ad valorem on the value of his share in the coparcenary property, i.e., on Rs. 1,35,000/-.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff challenged it by filing this petition of revision.
6. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, I am of opinion that this suit is fully covered by the provisions of Section 25 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. (hereinafter called the Act) Section 25 reads as under:
'25. Adoption suits:-- In a suit for a declaration in regard to the validity or invalidity of an adoption or the factum of an adoption, fee shall be payable at the following rates:--
Where the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief:--
(i) is rupees five thousand or less Rs. 50/-
(ii) exceeds rupees five thousand but does not exceedrupees ten thousand Rs. 100/-
(iii) exceeds rupees tenthousand Rs. 500/-
It will be seen on a plain reading of thissection that it applies not merely to asuit for a declaration in regard to thevalidity or invalidity of an adoption orthe factum of adoption, but also to asuit in which some relief is claimed as ancillary to the main relief of declaration, in respect of property affected by or involved in the adoption. If the value of the property involved in or affected by the main relief of declaration in regard to adoption exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, the plaintiff is required to pay a court-fee of Rs. 500/-. This is exactly the court-fee paid by the plaintiff in the instant case. No valid objection can, therefore, be raised to the valuation of the suit as stated by the plaintiff and the court-fees paid by him thereon. A perusal of Section 24 of the Act, which is the general section dealing with suits for declaration will show that the legislature has made therein an express exception in favour of declaratary decrees regarding adoption and the property affected by such decrees. Section 24 of the Act, therefore, has no application to the facts of this case.
7. Section 6 of the Act will also sup-port the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that the court-fee of Rs. 500/- paid by the plaintiff is sufficient to cover the entire relief. Subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act lays down that in any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs sought are based on the same cause of action, the plaintiff shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs. The proviso to this Sub-section makes it clear that if one of the reliefs based on the same cause of action is ancillary to the other relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief. The cause of action on which the instant suit is based is the one covered by Section 25 of the Act. As already stated, this section deals with adoption suits in their entirety in the sense that not only the plaintiff may seek the relief of declaration in regard to the validity or invalidity of an adoption or the factum of an adoption, he may also claim a declaration that the main relief asked in the suit would affect certain property, for example coparcenary property, as in the instant case. The relief relating to property in such a situation, is obviously ancillary to the main relief Of declaration in regard to the validity or invalidity of an adoption or the factum of an adoption.
8. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the plaint in the instant suit has been correctly framed keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of theAct, and that correct court-fee as required by that section has been paid by the plaintiff.
9. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant, however, contended that the plaintiff has sought a relief extending beyond the relief of declaration as to the nature of property in the suit, for he has prayed in that context that he is entitled to one half share in the said property as a coparcener. This claim on behalf of the plaintiff appears to be wholly inadmissible within the framework of the main relief. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff, also agrees that until the plaintiff seeks a relief of partition of the coparcenery property, he cannot, as a coparcener, predicate of such property that he has any specified share therein.
10. For all these reasons, this petition of revision is allowed and the impugned order of the trial Court, dated March 23, 1979, is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own cost. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in the suit in the light to the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on March 30, 1981 and obtain orders from it for further proceedings in the suit. The record of the case may be returned to the trial Court immediately.