LAW FOR ALL

Section 6(v) and (vii) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short, 'the 1959 Act')= In the premise aforesaid, we hold that the trial Court and the High Court committed grave error by holding that the valuation of the suit property done by respondent No.1 was correct and the trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also the one passed by the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for deciding the issue of jurisdiction afresh after requiring respondent No.1 to pay court fees keeping in view the fact that suit property was non-agricultural.= The statement contained in paragraph 5 of the plaint unmistakably shows that respondent No.2 had converted the suit property from agricultural to non-agricultural and the same was sold to the appellant as non-agricultural property. If that was not so, the competent authority would not have given permission to the appellant to raise construction over the suit property. In the premise aforesaid, we hold that the trial Court and the High Court committed grave error by holding that the valuation of the suit property done by respondent No.1 was correct and the trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also the one passed by the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for deciding the issue of jurisdiction afresh after requiring respondent No.1 to pay court fees keeping in view the fact that suit property was non-agricultural. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on May 13, 2013.