gst 1 wp1341.04.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 1341 OF 2004. Sudam Bhaskarrao Rajole ... .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Dyaneshvar Tukaram Jadhav & Ors. ... ... ..Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. For the petitioner. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 25th March, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Inspite of being served with notice for final disposal none appears for the respondents. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.10.2003 vide which the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik has allowed the application of the respondent-defendant to the effect that the suit is not proper valued and the plaintiff-petitioner has been directed to value the suit for seeking protection of 35% of the share in the suit property. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have no right to take any steps in respect of suit property to the extent of petitioner’s share. An injunction is also sought against all the defendants not to create any third party interest in respect of share of the petitioner in the suit property. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are cousins and they have established one company viz. Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that initially son of defendant No.2 was also Director of the said company. Subsequently it was substituted by defendant No.2. It has been contended that the property at Dindori was purchased in the gst 2 wp1341.04.sxw name of the company and an application for conversion for the same into non- agricultural land was also made. It was contended that defendant No.1 by showing that defendant No.1 was alone owner of the company had taken the loan of Rs.30 lacs by mortgaging the suit property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he has 35% share in the said property. In these premises it was contended by the plaintiff that the said transactions between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 was not binding to share of the plaintiff. 4. It can thus be seen that the petitioner was only seeking declaration to the effect that mortgage executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 3 and 4 to the extent of petitioner’s share was not binding on him and consequential injunction to that effect. It can thus be seen that the suit would be governed by section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. In that view of the matter impugned order is not sustainable in law. Hence rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).