Shubham Subhash Kale v. Hambirrao Mahadeo Patil & Ors.

Mr.B.P.Walimbe, for petitioner. Mr.K.S.Patil, for respondent nos.1 to3. ..... ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court which is confirmed by the District Court in Appeal. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that on plain reading of the plaint, the prayer for declaration is not properly valued. It is submitted that if proper valuation would have been made, the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division could not have entertained the suit. His submission is that the name of petitioner appears in the 7/12 extract and even name of predecessors of the petitioner appear in the said extract and there is no material on record to show that the original plaintiffs were tenants of the entire suit land. 2] The courts below after considering the revenue records have recorded a prima facie findings that the original plaintiffs are in possession and, therefore, by granting temporary injunction their possession has been protected. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution KBP wp2997-09.sxw : 2 : of India. As far as valuation of property is concerned, , the petitioners can always file an application before the trial Court for holding an enquiry as contemplated by Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and all contentions of the petitioners as regards valuation of suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction are kept open. 3] Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is rejected. It is made clear that the suit be decided without being influenced by the tentative findings recorded by the courts below. The contention of the petitioner that it is necessary to make a reference under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1998 is also kept open.

( A.S.OKA, J. )