1. With the consent of Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No. 7, 8, 10 & 11, writ petition is heard finally by making rule returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner – plaintiff has challenged the order dated 02.09.2009 passed below Exh. 93 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, upholding the objection to the valuation of Court Fee raised by the respondents and directing him to pay deficit court fee stamp as per provisions of Section 6(iv) (ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that the objection raised before the trial Court is misconceived. The suit as valued at Rs.4,60,000/- is proper and provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) have been satisfied in the matter. The plaintiff has sought 1/4th share after the partition of agricultural land and its possession. The relief of cancellation of sale deed and declaration and ownership is in relation to instrument to which he is not a party. The direction to pay court fee on 1/4th share of plaintiff on market valuation is, therefore, unsustainable.

4. According to Shri Deshpan