Proper valuation of the plaint as per the Bombay Court Fee Act and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.

R.M. Borde, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, revision application is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

3. Original defendant no. 4 has approached this court taking exception to the order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi Branch, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No. 2067/2010 in S.C.Suit No. 2078/2008.

4. Notice of motion came to be moved by defendant/applicant herein requesting the court to return the plaint presented by the plaintiffs/respondents herein for proper presentation to the appropriate Court, as contemplated by Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 ( hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) presented suit against respondent nos. 6 to 8 original defendant nos. 1 to 3 and the appellant and respondent no. 9 / original defendant nos. 4 and 5 claiming perpetual injunction and negative declaration. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners of 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property which is a plot admeasuring 1452.1 sq. mtrs out of survey no. 75 Hissa no. 5, CTS No. 694 and 671 situate at village Kandiwali, Mumbai. According to the plaintiffs, the other 2/3rd undivided share belong to two other branches of plaintiffs family. It is alleged that the cause of action arose in the month of November 2008 when one of the branches, according to the plaintiffs, having 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property and who have been impleaded as defendant nos. to 3 in the suit, denied right, entitlement of the plaintiffs in relation to suit property and asserted their exclusive rights. On assertion that plaintiffs are owner of 1/3rd undivided share in the property, plaintiffs have sought declaration that defendant nos. 1 to 3 are not entitled to sell, transfer etc. suit property and, alienation, if any made by defendant nos. 1 to 3, in favour of defendant nos. 4 and 5, is not binding on plaintiffs and will have no effect on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs.

6. Defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to defendant nos. 4 and 5, plaintiffs have no interest in the property. It is contended by defendants that by virtue of agreement dated 31st January, , defendant nos. 1 to 3 who had become exclusive owner of the suit property pursuant to the family arrangement / partition, had agreed to sell and grant development rights in respect of suit property to defendant Nos.4 and 5. It is also pleaded that simultaneously with execution of agreement dated 31st January, 1988, possession has been handed over to defendants. Agreement is also confirmed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs who had signed it as confirming parties. There is a deed of conveyance executed on 27th January, 2003, by virtue of which defendants became owner of the property. The deed of conveyance has been registered with the Sub- Registrar, Assurances, Borivali on 9th May, 2003. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial court and one of the issues framed is in respect of ownership of the plaintiffs and their entitlement to 1/3rd share in the suit property. Issue has also been framed in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. It is the contention of defendant that the suit presented by plaintiffs is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The suit has not been properly valued and, as such, plaint shall be returned for proper presentation as contemplated by Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Notice of motion was heard by the Court after extending opportunity to both the parties and the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by order dated 14th December, was pleased to reject the notice of motion presented by defendant nos. 4 and 5 and held that the suit is properly valued and the plaint is not required to be returned to the plaintiffs as claimed by defendants.

8. In order to appreciate the controversies, it woul