1. Petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2016 by which application filed under section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act read with section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act has been rejected.

2. Respondents No.1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against the present petitions. According to the plaintiff he and his brother are the owners of land bearing survey

No.356/1, area 0.712 hectares. The said land was divided into various plots and sold by plaintiff and his brother. That one of the plot ad-measuring

20/36 ft. (total 720 sq. ft.) received by the plaintiff by way of partition was given to Jamunalal, father of defendants No.1 to 3 for residential purpose due to friendly relation with him on the condition that during his life time he will reside in a temporary structure made on it and after his death the same would be returned to the plaintiffs. Shri Jamunalal died in the year 2015 and when plaintiffs demanded possession of the said plot from defendants No.1 to 3 they demolished the temporary structure and instead of handing over possession to the plaintiff it was informed that they have purchased the said plot by way of registered deed from their father and later on they sold a part of the said land admeasuring 20×8 sq. ft. to defendant No.4. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit that sale deed dated 2.7.2013 and 14.11.2014 be declared void and not binding on them and the plaintiffs be declared as owner of the said land and the defendants be restrained to make construction over the said plot.

3. After notice petitioners/defendants filed an application under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act read with section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act alleging that as per sale deed dated 2.7.2013 the value of the property is Rs.19,75,000/- and the present market value is Rs.26 lacs, therefore, plaintiffs be directed to value the suit as per the market value and pay the ad valorem court-fees. It is further submitted that the land has been diverted and it is no more agricultural land, therefore, it is required to be valued as per the market guidelines.

4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and vide order dated 6.5.2016 the said objection was turned down, hence the present petition before this Court.

5. Shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the pleading in the plaint there is a house over the land in dispute and the land is situated in a residential area and the plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration, injunction and possession, therefore, plaintiffs are required to value the suit under section 7(iv)(c) of the court-Fees Act and liable to pay ad valorem court-fees. In the sale deed dated 2.7.2012 the market rate of the property was mentioned as Rs.19,75,000/-, therefore, the suit has to be valued as per the value of the property and not on the basis of the land revenue. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the decisions in the case of Jai Kumar s/o Roadmalji Glhag (Jain) v. Shripal and others, reported in 2005(I) MPACJ 132, Shadab Grih Nirman v. Parita Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit and another, reported in 2007(1) MPWN 112, and Vishnu Dayal v. Mst.Budhwara and others, reported in 2009(5) MPHT 94 (CG).

6. Shri V. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the land in dispute was an agricultural land when it was handed over to the defendants' father. The demarcation was done by the revenue authorities under section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code as the defendants were using the land for non agricultural purpose. Plaintiff has nothing to do with the order of diversion which was done behind their back and without their permission. Plaintiff are in possession of the Rin Pustika which was prepared by the revenue authorities because land is agricultural land. When the land was given to the father of defendants No.1 and