1 AO No.955/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.955 of 2010 Thagalasery Vasu Aiyyar ... Appellant versus Tata Power Company & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. R.B.Parab for the appellant CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 15th November 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant (original plaintiff) 2. In the suit, plaintiff has claimed a declaration that plaintiff has become owner of the suit premises by adverse possession. Plaintiff valued the suit u/s.6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act (for short “the Act”). The trial court held that the suit is required to be valued u/s.6(iv)(d) of the Act and if so valued the suit would be beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court therefore ordered plaint to be returned for presentation to proper court. That order is impugned in this appeal. 2 AO No.955/10 3. Section 6(iv)(d) of the Act says that in suits for declaration as to ownership the Court fees would be payable on 1/4th of ad- valorem fee leviable for a suit for possession. Since plaintiff has claimed the declaration of ownership, the suit would squarely fall u/s.6(iv)(d) of the Act and not u/s/.6(iv)(j) which is a residuary clause regarding other declarations. I therefore see no error in the Court holding the suit was required to be valued u/s.6(iv)(d) of the Act. Valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is the same as for the purposes of Court fees under the Suits Valuation Act. Hence, I find no error in the impugned order. Appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)