1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2010 Changdev S. Jagtap and Ors. ...Applicants. v. Ankush C. Jagtap and Ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis, adv. For the Applicants. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. Suit for partition was filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs wherein they had valued the suit at Rs.96,656/- being value of their 1/4th share in the suit property. Besides, valuation of the construction, valuation of the land on the basis of land revenue was also made. Court-fee was paid accordingly. Defendant nos.1 to 4, who are the applicants before this Court contended that value of the property was more than Rs.6 lacs and value of 1/4th share of the plaintiff is Rs. 1,50,000/- or more and, therefore, the Civil Judge Junior Division has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court and evidence was also led by the parties. Plaintiffs had valued the suit on the basis of two valuation certificates issued by the Sub- 2 registrar. Value of one part of the property is shown to be Rs.1,72,655/- and the value of the remaining part to be Rs.2,13,971/-. Total value of the property as per both certificates was Rs.3,86,626 and, therefore, value of 1/4th share of the plaintiff was calculated at Rs.96,656/-. Sub- registrar was examined before the Court and he deposed that he had given valuation certificates on the basis of ready reckoner applicable to that area. The trial Court discussed the evidence at length and came to conclusion that the suit is properly valued. 2 Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)