1. In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order passed by the court below rejecting I.A.No.7 filed by them under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to return the plaint by holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The defendants had also urged that the suit was not properly valued and the court fee paid was not proper and correct. The Trial Court has negatived this contention of defendants as well holding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff by valuing the suit under Section 41(1)(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Court Fees Act’, for short) was correct.

2. The suit is filed by respondents 1 to 4 against the petitioners herein and also respondent No.5 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking a direction to the defendants to immediately hand over vacant possession of the suit property to plaintiffs alleging that defendants had illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs. Case of the plaintiffs has been that they were tenants in possession of the suit schedule premises and the defendants had illegally dispossessed them on 1st February 2014.

3. Defendants have filed written statement and have resisted the suit. They have contended inter alia that valuation made of the suit property and the relief sought under Section 41(1)(d) was not correct, as Section 28 of the Court Fee Act provided that in a suit for possession of immovable property filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, fee shall be computed on one half of the market value of the property or on Rs.1,000/- whichever was higher. In fact, on this aspect, the Court below had earlier passed an order in favour of the plaintiffs which was challenged before this Court and this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by providing an opportunity to both side, vide order dated 11th August 2014 passed in W.P. No.105177/2014. Thereafter, the defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC contending inter alia that market value of the suit property was Rs.1,79,05,674/and therefore, the Court of Civil Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction and hence, plaint may be returned to the plaintiffs to present it before the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The Trial Court has heard both parties and has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court.

4. I have heard Sri M.G.Naganuri, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Sachin S.Magadum, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

5. On careful perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, the only point that arises for my consideration is,

Whether the Court below was right and justified in holding that the valuation made by the plaintiffs of the relief sought in the suit under Section 41(1)(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is just and correct.

6. Section 28 of the Court Fees Act reads as under:

“ 28. Suits for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877: In a suit for possession of immovable property under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act I of 1877), fee shall be computed on one half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher.”

7. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act I of 1877) to which reference has been made in Section 28 is now found in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of

1963), which reads as under:

“ 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought –

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or

(b) against the Government.

(3) No appeal s