1 WP 91/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2011 Kisan Raoba Borge & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Kusum Babanrao Bhagat & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.D. Paigude for the petitioners. Mr. Sumit U. Khaire for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 27th October 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad, rejecting the application made by the petitioners (original defendant nos.1 to 3) for rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. 2. Defendant nos.1 to 3 purchased the suit properties by three sale deeds dated 29th October 2001, 9th April 2004 and 15th July 2009. The total consideration of the three sale deeds is Rs.2,55,000/- The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, filed the 2 WP 91/2011 suit claiming that they had 2/3rd share in the suit properties and the sale deeds were not binding on their 2/3rd share. The petitioners filed an application contending that since the total value of the suit properties as per the sale deeds was Rs. 2,55,000/-, the Civil Judge, Junior Division had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division is limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial Court rejected the application. That decision is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was required to be valued under section 6(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act on the valuation of the suit properties and as such the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 4. Subject matter of the suit was only 2/3rd share of the respondents (plaintiffs) in the suit properties. The value of 2/3rd share comes to Rs.1,70,000/-. Clause (ha) of section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act (for short “the Act”) says that in suits for declaration that any sale or contract for sale or termination of contract for sale of any movable or immovable property is void, the court fee would be half of ad valorem fee payable on the value of the property. The suit was required to be valued at half 3 WP 91/2011 the value of the properties, viz. Rs.1,70,000/-, that is Rs.85,000/-. Under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction except in respect of suits falling under paragraphs v, vi, x and clause (d) of paragraph (xi) of section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. Accordingly, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 85,000/- which is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)