https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287996 A plaint that, in substance, seeks cancellation of a money decree must be valued under the specific provision governing cancellation of decrees, not under the general declaratory provision. The court held that substance, rather than form, controls court-fee liability: a pleading framed as declaration and injunction cannot be used to undervalue relief where the real object is to set aside a decree with money value. As the plaintiffs were parties to the decree and the challenge was directed at its validity, Section 38 applied and the deficit court fee was rightly upheld. en-us Fri, 11 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2020 17:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287996 A plaint that, in substance, seeks cancellation of a money decree must be valued under the specific provision governing cancellation of decrees, not under the general declaratory provision. The court held that substance, rather than form, controls court-fee liability: a pleading framed as declaration and injunction cannot be used to undervalue relief where the real object is to set aside a decree with money value. As the plaintiffs were parties to the decree and the challenge was directed at its validity, Section 38 applied and the deficit court fee was rightly upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287996