JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 22-10-2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 1711 of 2010 below Ex. 6 passed by the Learned City Civil judge , City Civil Court Mumbai rejecting the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiff claimed as transferee, occupant and ownership of the premises being Room No. 3, Mahavir Building. According to the Plaintiff there was a clause 10 of reconveyance in earlier written agreement for Sale dated 31-03-1957 between Occupant Kishorbhai Premchand Shah and charitable Trust (Defendant no. 1). The Trust issued notice to the Plaintiff on 04-07-1988 to enforce clause 10 of the agreement offering sum of Rs 1575/- by cheque and sought reacquisition of the suit premises on the basis of clause 10 and offered monthly tenancy of the suit premises at the rate of Rs 50/- to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff rejected the offer of tenancy, disputing the right of the Trust under clause 10 of the Agreement dated 31-03-1957 to re-conveyance of suit premises. 3. It is case of the Plaintiff that plaintiff took objection after the Trust decided to dispose off it’s property by a Public notice dated 28-01-2009 published in ‘Mumbai Samachar’Gujrathi News Paper and objected by letter dated 21-02-2009. Trust replied and denied the statements made by the Plaintiff by reply dated 02-03-2009. Thus Plaintiff had filed S.C suit 1711 of 2010 for declaration that he holds and occupy the suit premises; with full and complete ownership challenging clause 10 and 14 of the Agreement for Sale dated 31-03-1957 as void and have no legal effect, with an prayer for permanent injunction restraining Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s Possession, on the basis of clause 10 and 14 of the Agreement dated 31-03-1957. 4. The Suit was valued for Rs 1000/-only mentioning clause Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act though the Plaintiff was seeking declaration as to ownership of the Suit property and also seeking relief to declare that clauses 10 and 14 of the Agreement dated 31-03-1957 are void. 5. The Trial Court had noticed after hearing the Parties and upon perusal of the Plaint that the Plaintiff claimed declaration that She is occupying the suit property as Owner and also that the clauses 10 and 14 of the Agreement dated 31-03-1957 as Void. 5. The Trial Court had noticed after hearing the Parties and upon perusal of the Plaint that the Plaintiff claimed declaration that She is occupying the suit property as Owner and also that the clauses 10 and 14 of the Agreement dated 31-03-1957 as Void. The Plaintiff had knowledge about the notice dated 04-07-1988 (vide Para 6 of the Plaint) from the Trust but She claimed that suit premises was allegedly purchased by her in 1994. Learned Trial Judge applied Art 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 whereby the period of Limitation is three years reckoned from when the Trust gave notice dated 04-07-1988 to the Plaintiff’s predecessor of enforcing the clause 10 of agreement dated 31-03-1957 while offering Tenancy to the Plaintiff’s predecessor, who had rejected the offer of Tenancy. No Suit was filed within three years from 04-07-1988 when the right to Sue first accrued in favour of the Plaintiff or her predecessor. Thus it was observed by a reasoned order that the Suit was barred under Art 58 of limitation Act as filed beyond period of Limitation. 6. The Court also found that the Suit was not valued properly for the purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction. Learned Trial Judge refereed to Section 6 (iv)(d) of the Bombay court fees Act and observed that ¼th ad valorem fee was leviable on the market value of the Suit property. Valuation for the purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction was made at Rs 1000/- only as stated in Para 23 of the Plaint despite the fact that the residential property is situated at Matunga, prime area in City of Mumbai where market price cannot be less than Ten Lakhs. 7. It is true that the plaintiff is free to make his or her own estimation of the reliefs sought in the Plaint. But if valuation appears meager, arbitrary, and unreasonable the Court can consider the prayers made and valuation made for reliefs of declaration and injunction in respect ownership title claimed over suit property, and may reject the plaint if valuation for the purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction is found deliberately wrong. 8. But if valuation appears meager, arbitrary, and unreasonable the Court can consider the prayers made and valuation made for reliefs of declaration and injunction in respect ownership title claimed over suit property, and may reject the plaint if valuation for the purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction is found deliberately wrong. 8. In the Plaint valuation was stated in Para 23 thus; “23.The Plaintiff values the relief claimed in the Suit at Rs 1000/- and has paid the court fees accordingly” This was deliberate, bald and vague statement in mischievous disregard to the relevant provisions of the Suit valuation Act as well as the Bombay court Fees Act or willful ignorance of relevant provisions of law to avoid revenue. By improper and unjust valuation with scant disregard for the provisions of the Suit valuation Act and the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act the plaintiff can not allowed to get away from the fiscal liability before approaching the Court of law. 9. No care was taken by the Plaintiff to cure the defect of wrong valuation and vagueness in description of the suit property despite the fact that specific written objections were taken by the defendant. The Plaintiff could have valued the Suit separately for the purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction of the Court as contemplated under the Suit Valuation Act and mentioning the relevant provision of the Bombay Court fees Act. Valuation for the purposes of the Court fees and for the purposes of the jurisdiction may also be the same. But when the plaintiff in substance wanted to claim the declaration as to the right , title as Owner of the immovable residential property situated at Matunga, prime area in City of Mumbai capable being valued in terms of money preferably by the Government ready reckoner price and was duty bound to state the market price of the property by reasonably estimating the suit for the purposes of valuation of the Suit and for jurisdiction of the Court and ought to have made payment of ad valorem court fees stating the relevant provisions briefly for benefit of the ministerial officer of the Court for to file the plaint. This was not done even till plaint was rejected by the Court and not even till this appellate stage. This was not done even till plaint was rejected by the Court and not even till this appellate stage. The plaintiff must be vigilant to give description of the immovable suit property with its full description including boundaries thereof as required in Order 7 rule 3 of the civil procedure code, as amended in state of Maharashtra and cannot suppress the market value of the Suit property from the court, as required to be stated for the purposes of valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction of the court as also for payment of the Court fees. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding whether to return or reject the plaint are the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the power to reject the plaint at any stage of the suit even before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of O.7, R. 11, the averments in the plaint are the relevant and not the defence pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement. Defence would be wholly irrelevant at the stage of rejection of the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 (Saleembhai& Ors. v. AIR 2003 SC 759 ). Hence no fault is found with the impugned order rejecting the Plaint as barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act as also the plaintiff continued to run the risk of rejecting of plaint due to wrong valuation for the purposes of the Court fees and jurisdiction in view of the provisions under Order 7 rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil procedure. 10. For all the reasons stated no interference is required by this Court with the impugned reasoned order. The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed with costs.