The trial court has the discretion to accept the plaintiff's valuation if found correct and proper, without the need for time-consuming inquiry, as long as the claim is within its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. The revision applicants question legality, propriety, and correctness of impugned order dated 6.9.2012 whereby learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Katol rejected the application made by defendant Nos.2 and 3. According to the defendants, since the plaintiff had prayed for declaration that the sale deed of the suit property is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and his legal heirs, the defendants had objected to the suit on the ground that enquiry be made regarding market value and correct value of the suit property to ascertain payment of court-fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the case of Miss Aninha D'Costa vs. Mrs Parvatibai M. Thakur, reported at AIR 1966 Bombay 113 (V 53 C 17) in order to make submission that under Section 8 of the Bombay– now Maharashtra-Court-Fees Act, 1959, the trial Court may make inquiry as to valuation of the suit. If the Court is of opinion that the subjectmatter of any suit has been wrongly valued or if any application is made to the Court for the revision of any valuation made, the Court may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. Though Section 8 of the Maharashtra Court-Fees Act enables the Court to examine valuation made in the suit and to ascertain the correct value of the suit pursuant to the inquiry which may be made, it is not really mandatory for the Court to do so under the said Section but is left to judicial discretion of the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that the suit was filed with a prayer to declare the sale deed as illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff had valued the suit claim on the basis of his prayers in the sum of Rs.1,60,000/pursuant to the registered sale deed in respect thereof. The advalorem Courtfees was, therefore, mentioned in the sum of Rs.1,66,000/and one half of advalorem fee was paid for reliefs under Section 6(iv) and 6(v) of the Act. As such, the trial Court did not find any illegality or impropriety in the valuation made. Prima facie, the plaintiff is master of his suit and he may value the suit for the purposes of payment of court fees as well as for the jurisdiction of the Court. If such valuation is, prima facie, found correct and proper, the trial Court need not enter into time consuming inquiry which may prejudice the parties as the suit will be lingering on in spite of the plaintiff's having prima facie justly valued the suit properly for the purposes of payment of courtfees and jurisdiction of the Court citing the legal provisions. The trial Court would be well within its judicial discretion to accept the valuation made by the plaintiff if just in suit for declaration and possession so as to proceed with the hearing suit on merits, if the claim is within its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction regarding valuation as stated in the plaint, no illegality is pointed out on behalf of the revision applicants so as to compel the plaintiff to value the suit property as per present market value.

4. I have gone through the ruling in the case of Miss Aninha D'Costa cited (supra) upon which the defendants had placed reliance. The Court is entitled to construe the plaint and if on a fair construction the Court can arrive at the conclusion that what is really intended is a claim for possession, then the suit should not be dismissed only on the ground that the Courtfee has been paid on the basis of relief for an injunction. In such case, the Court can after construing the plaint, direct the plaintiff to pay the deficit Courtfee if necessary for the relief possession on the basis of the value of the property as fixed by it. The Court is, therefore, not powerless to deal with the questi