IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10343 of 2011 Gokaran Prasad Versus Tapeshwar Devi & Ors ----------- 02. 05.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is directed against the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by Sub Judge IV, Bettiah, West Champaran in Partition Suit No.59 of 2009 whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff objecting to the Stamp Report has been rejected. It appears that the Stamp Reporter reported that the plaintiff is required to file ad valorem Court fee on the value of the properties covered by sale deeds on the ground that the plaintiff has prayed not only for partitioning suit property but also for declaring that three sale deeds dated 17.07.2006, 24.04.2007 and 25.05.2007 are illegal, void and prayed for setting aside the same. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order considered the decisions of this Court reported in 1998 P.L.J.R.428 and also from perusal of the prayer made in the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the said sale deeds. It was held that he is liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied 2 upon a decision reported in 2007(1) BBCJ V- 405(Kamaldeo Prasad Singh vs. Smt. Ramsawari Devi) and submitted that the petitioner is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee. From perusal of the said decisions, it appears that in that case suit was filed simply for declaring the sale deed as void. It is well settled that for declaring a sale deed as void or any document as void, it is not necessary even to file suit, the same can be shown to be void document in any collateral proceeding also. Therefore, this decision is not applicable here. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)