- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 608 OF 2008 Vinayak Tanaji Parab ... Applicant Vs. Mrs. Sulochana Maru Khopade & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P. B. Shelke, for the applicant. Mr. K. J. Kandpile, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 16, 2009. PC :- 1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit against respondent No. 3 and the appellant for declaration that they have got share in the suit property. The prayer of cancellation of agreement to sale, entered between respondent No.3 and the appellant was also made. The appellant in this suit objected jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, by filing application at Exhibit 51, under section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that market price of the properties under the agreement is Rs.19,48,000/- and therefore, suit ought to have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. This application was rejected by the trial Court on two grounds, namely, the respondent No.1 & 2 and original plaintiff are not parties to agreement to sell and secondly, the agreement does not create any interest in the property. - 2 - 2. It is specific case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they are in joint possession of the suit property and therefore, declaration to that effect is claimed. In my view the suit for declaration, as sought, can be filed before the Civil Judge Junior Division under section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. So far as relief of cancellation of agreement to sell, entered between respondent No.3 and appellant inter-se is concerned, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not parties to the said agreement, therefore, provisions of section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, are not applicable to the facts of present case. I find no merits in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]