JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Sarthak Diwan for the petitioner and Advocate Dormaan Dalal for the respondent/defendant no.18.

2 A short point that arise for consideration is whether the Suit filed by the plaintiffs, seeking declaration and perpetual injunction ought to have attracted the Court fee in terms of Section 6(iv)(ha) or the Court fee was to be charged under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

The aforesaid question arose in the backdrop of the fact that the Suit property is an agricultural property described in paragraph no.1 of the plaint and it was pleaded to be the ancestral property of one Shri Savla, having two sons - Ramchandra and Baban and four daughters. It was pleaded that the suit property was never partitioned in the joint family of Savla and it was cultivated in that capacity. After the demise of Savla, his widow Chandrabhaga was recorded as the owner of the suit property.

The contention of the plaintiffs is to the effect that defendant no.18 prepared a fraudulent unregistered document titled as ‘Power of Attorney’ and the plaintiffs dispute execution of any such document, by pleading that they have never been to Pune for the purpose o