1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.243 OF 2010 Smt. Flori C. Luis Since Deceased 1(a) Jude C. Luis & ORs. ...Appellants. v. Peater W. D'Mello and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Sudarshan Shingrani, adv. for the Appellants. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents through served. The deceased plaintiff/appellant filed a suit seeking declaration of her title over the suit property admeasuring 500 sq. yards equivalent to about 4128.05 sq. feet with tenements and dwelling houses standing thereon situated at Kanjur, Bombay Suburban District, alongwith perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the suit property. Suit was filed in the City Civil Court and was valued as per the provisions of Section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act and the Court fee was paid accordingly. The trial Court framed issues and one of the issues was about the pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial Court held 2 that the valuation of the suit has to be made as per the market rate and for the purpose of payment of Court fees, it will be covered by Section 6(iv)(d) which provides that in a suit for declaration in respect of ownership of immovable property, 1/4th of the ad-valorem fee leviable for a suit for possession will have to be paid and if in addition to the declaration consequential relief, other than possession, is sought, Court fees shall be half of the ad-valorem fee and when the consequential relief also includes a relief for possession, ad-valorem fee should be full. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that immovable property situated in Mumbai is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and, therefore, valuation could not have been made for the purpose of Court fees under Section 6(4)(j). The trial Court rightly held that Court fees has to be paid as per Section 6(4) (d). The Court also held that value of the property is much more than pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, which is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. With these findings, the trial Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff. 2 After perusal of the prayer clauses in the plaint and the impugned order passed by the trial Court, I find no illegality in the same. After return of the plaint, appellants can make proper valuation 3 for jurisdiction and Court-fees and file suit before the Court having jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also contends that the trial Court has also given findings of the facts on all other issues and that may adversely affect plaintiffs. In fact when the trial Court had come to conclusion that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction, finding on any other issues given by the trial Court will be without jurisdiction and therefore, they can not be binding on any Court having jurisdiction before whom the plaint may be re-filed. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the present appeal. 3 With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4