the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad & Meshwar Prasad & Anr 4 JT 1987 (3) SC 258"as per which Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that whenever the suit is for declaration and consequential relief the value put forward by plaintiff for the purpose of court fees and for the purpose of suit valuation is to be generally accepted by the court except where the same is "demonstratively arbitrary" or "unreasonable". It has also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the plaintiff has no absolute right or option to place any arbitrary valuation. The same can be inquired by the court where the suit is pending.

2) 

as per Section 7 (iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, the court fees in the case where declaration and consequential relief is sought the same is to be paid ad­ valorem.

i agree with your advocate

no ad valorem court fee is required to be paid when the Plaintiff is not seeking recovery of possession and is already in possession of the suit property

there is no need to cite any judgment when the law itself is so clear 

if the Court still feels that you are liable to pay ad valorem court fee then you will have to challenge that order before the higher court 

you are merely seeking a declaration. You are not asking for possession in which event the full court fee as per market value of the suit property is required to be paid. Certainly the Court has erred. 

Poorly advised will let to pay unwanted court fees. You have registered sale deed and physical possession from 3 decades., you only had to prayer for injunction. You have been wrongly advised. 

Just withdraw the suit with the liberty to file fresh suit and only prayer for injunction along with non interference with your peaceful possession.  

Typically, ad valorem court fees are required when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and seeks to gain possession through the declaration of title. However, will need to go through the Plaint and the injunction application to advise further

in order to find out whether the suit is properly valued or not, one has to look into the averments in the plaint, the relief sought for and then decide the provision which is to be invoked for payment of court fee. In this context, it is also necessary to keep in mind Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 

The declaration that a particular sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff would become necessary only when a person who has interest in the property, but is not a signatory to the document, and some other person purports to convey the said title.

in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher.

That is precisely what Section 31 of the Specific Performance Act provides. Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable. Therefore, only a person who is a party to the instrument is entitled to such relief. Any person against whom the instrument is void/voidable reasonably apprehends that such instrument if left outstanding, it may cause him serious injury, he may bring a suit to get the document annulled. That is precisely what is done by the plaintiff by filing the suit. A clever drafting would not enable the plaintiff to avoid payment of court fee. Instead of seeking possession after cancellation, the relief is sought is by way of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to surrender the schedule property, failing which he would get it through process of court. In other words, after the sale deed is cancelled, the plaintiff wants delivery of possession. Therefore, he ought to have sought for cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Performance Act, sought for consequential reliefs then the valuation of suit may not be proper. 

Dear Client,

I agree with your advocate no ad valorem court fee is required to be paid when the plaintiff is not seeking recovery of possession and is already in possession of the suit property. In the case of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad & Meshwar Prasad & Anr. [AIR 1987 SC 2085], the Supreme Court held that "whenever the suit is for declaration and consequential relief, the value put forward by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fees and for the purpose of suit valuation is to be generally accepted by the court, except where the same is 'demonstratively arbitrary' or 'unreasonable'.” Therefore, in your case, as you are already in settled possession of the property based on the GPA/Will/ATS transaction, the court fees paid for the injunction and declaration reliefs should be sufficient. In order to address the court order, you can draft an application requesting the reconsideration of the court fee order through your lawyer emphasizing that you have been in continuous and settled possession of the property for 32 years and that your suit primarily seeks to confirm your existing rights rather than recover possession.

You can do google search for further judgments .i have already cited SC judgment 

There are plenty of judgments,  you can approach your advocate who will search a suitable one to the situation 

- The above given details of Court fees is sufficient for the suit of Declaration and Injunction in Delhi , if the plaintiff is in physical possession at the time of filing the suit.  

- If the Court reject the plaint on the ground of court fees , then you can approach the Higher Court against that order . 

- As per Supreme Court in the matter of BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA versus PRATAP NARAIN VERMA & ANR, The market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation - the market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation might have its relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed but, ultimately, the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed - It is unquestionable principle of law that a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property.

Instead withdraw and file fresh. 

Dear Client,

In the cases Jagabandhu Naik And Anr. vs Gouri Bandha And Ors. (AIR 1985 ORI 126), Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 2807), and Smt. Gangesh Kumari Kak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No.4995/2015), the courts has underscored the importance of paying ad valorem court fees when the plaintiff seeks a declaration of title as the primary relief along with other consequential reliefs, such as confirmation or recovery of possession. In the above-mentioned cases the respective courts have collectively highlighted that such fees are mandatory when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.

Number of lawyers on this website from Delhi having good ratings contact any of them 

You can engage the services of an advocate of this website hailing from Delhi or an advocate from the local bar association  on the terms of chosen lawyer. 

Mr. Anupam Srivastav. Give him my reference. He is best. 

- You can contact to me for civil cases in Delhi.