1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2010 M/s.Mansingka Industries Ltd. ..Applicant V/s. Provide Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondents & ors Mr.Kiran Jain i/b.Kiran Jain & Co., Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Zal A. with Mr.Vivek M. Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/b.Vivek Kantawala & Co., Advocate, for Respondent No.2 Ms.Angeline Rodrigues i/b.M/s.Negandhi, Shah and Hkayatullah, Advocate, for Respondent No.3 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application questions Order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court whereby he answered the issue as to jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain the suit in the Affirmative. The Application is being heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. 2. Facts which are material for deciding 2 this Civil Revision Application are as under :- The original Defendant No.2 i. e. M/s.M/s.Mansingka Industries Limited undisputedly owns the property. The property according to the Plaintiff, are certain shares in a Private Limited Company known as  Shyam Properties Private Limited which entitles the holder of the shares to possess premises situated in Maker Bhavan-1, 2nd floor, 1, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Mumbai  400 020. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has referred to the suit premises and claimed that they had been purchased by Defendant No.1. Thus, though, it is sought to be made out that the suit property is shares in Shyam Properties Private Limited, what is actually transferred is premises situated in Maker Bhavan-1, 2nd floor, 1, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Mumbai  400 020. The prayer Clause (a) of the plaint also shows that an injunction was sought in respect of the suit premises at 3 Maker Bhavan-1, 2nd floor, 1, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Mumbai  400 020. 3. This property was transferred by Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.1 by a Deed of Transfer of shares dated 27th March, 2003. This Deed was cancelled by the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 by registered document dated 8th April, 2004. Defendant No.2 entered into an Agreement with the Plaintiff on 1st December, 2004 i. e. after cancellation of the transfer in favour of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 further followed this up by executing a Deed of transfer on 5th March, 2005 for a total consideration of Rs.1,01,00,000/-. The Agreement of Sale dated 1st December, 2004 was registered but subsequent Deed of Transfer dated 5th March, 2005 has not been registered. The schedule of property in the Agreement of Sale describes the property as office premises at Maker Bhavan-1, 2nd floor, 1, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Mumbai  400 020. In the Deed 4 of Transfer in addition to this property, details of shares have also been mentioned. 4. The Plaintiff filed a suit stating that the cancellation of agreement between the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 had no effect and that the transfer of interest from Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.1 was complete in all respects and therefore, the Defendant No.1 was in a position to convey the property to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed an injunction to restrain the Defendants from executing any Agreement of Transfer or Deed of Transfer in favour of any third party or creating any third party rights or interest without seeking any declaration. 5. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Defendant No.2, in vague terms objection to jurisdiction was taken. The issues were framed which did not include the issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court. 5 Therefore, Defendant No.2 applied for framing such an issue which came to be framed after Plaintiff s Affidavit in evidence had been tendered. After considering the material before him the learned Judge passed impugned Order holding that the Court whose jurisdiction is restricted to the Rs.50,000/-, had the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. The learned Counsel for the Applicant- Defendant No.2 submitted that what was claimed is an injunction in respect of the immovable property and the question whether the Plaintiff was entitled to such injunction would entail going into the value of documents under which the Plaintiffs claim, transfer to them as also the document between the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 inter se. Therefore, 6 according to him, for the purpose of Court fees the suit should have been valued under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. 8. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents-Plaintiff, the suit was rightly valued under Clause 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, since the subject matter in dispute was not susceptible of monetary valuation. The learned Counsel for the Applicant drew my attention to Judgment of this Court in the matter of SAMRAT FURNITURE, NAGPUR and others vs. BHAURAO NATTHUJI MANKAR, reported in 2001(3)Mh.L.J., Smt.Indumatiben Chimanlal Desai v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 BOMBAY 423 and Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another, reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1809. In paragraph four of the Judgment in Corporation of the City of Bangalore, the Supreme Court had held that it was well established that for 7 deciding the nature of a suit the entire plaint has to be read and in that reading of the plaint in that case did not leave any manner of doubt that the suit has been filed for establishing the title of the plaintiffs. This Judgment had been followed in SAMRAT FURNITURE, NAGPUR and others vs. BHAURAO NATTHUJI MANKAR by this Court. In Smt.Indumatiben Chimanlal Desai v. Union of India, again the question of valuation of suit had arisen. In that case what was sought was avoidance of recovery of income tax to the tune of Rs.8,82,427.65/-P. The Court observed that the prayer in the plaint was equivalent to a prayer for setting aside the attachment and therefore, held that the suit would not fall within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and should have been filed before the Original Side, High Court, Bombay. 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondents-Plaintiff submitted that what had 8 been conveyed were shares in the Company which held the property, and the property came as a consequence of holding of such shares. He submitted that Section 6(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act had no application to the present case and therefore, there was nothing to show as to how valuation under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Court Fees Act was wrong. 10. It is clear from the reading of the plaint what Plaintiff seeks to be resolved in the suit is his right to the property, since the question of restraining the Defendant would arise only after the Plaintiff establishes that he has some right to the property. The question of his right would arise only if it is found that the Agreement of Sale dated 1st December, 2004 and Deed of Transfer dated 5th March, 2005 could not have been executed by Defendant No.1 after Defendant Nos.1 & 2 had cancelled the transfer to Defendant No.1 by agreement dated 8th April, 9 2004. Therefore, adjudication which is sought is about validity of cancellation dated 8th April, 2004 as also the Agreement entered into in favour of the Plaintiff by Defendant No.1 on 1st December, 2004 and 5th March, 2005. Therefore, merely by avoiding to claim a declaration, the Plaintiff cannot seek to have the suit decided by a Court having limited jurisdiction of Rs.50,000/-, particularly when his own Agreement with the Defendant No.1 shows that he was to purchase the property for Rs.1,01,000,00/-. 11. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents-Plaintiff, if the property is shares then the case presents absolutely no difficulty. In that case, valuation of the shares would govern as to whether the Court had jurisdiction or not. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that since Shyam Properties is Private Limited Company whose shares are not listed, valuation of those 10 shares cannot be ascertained. This should not pose any difficulty. The parties have entered into transactions which are either sought to be implemented or avoided. Therefore, the question as to what is valuation of the subject matter need not be in any doubt, and in any case, it is now shown to be less than Rs.50,000/- in any Agreement entered into by the parties. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondents-Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant had not formulated his challenge to the valuation and therefore, there is no reason why the valuation under Clause 6(iv)(j) of the Court Fees Act should not be held as proper. While it would have been ideal for the Defendant to spell out as to how he valued the suit or that suit should have been valued in a particular manner and that it was not sufficient for the Defendant to merely state that suit was not properly valued, since the 11 parties had joined the issue which had been framed and decided. This inadequacy in the pleadings need not stand in the way of holding that the learned Judge erred in concluding that the suit was within his jurisdiction on the superfluous plea that what was claimed was a mere injunction without any declaration. 13. In view of this, Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned Order is quashed and set aside. It is held that Plaintiff was obliged to value the property at least in tune with the Agreement on which he relies and that if so valued, the suit would have to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court. If the Plaintiff does not take requisite steps within a period of eight weeks, the learned Trial Judge would proceed to deal with the suit under Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 12