Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Asha Sopan Maithane, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, below Exh. 93. The trial court had upheld the objection raised by the respondents regarding the valuation of court fee and directed the petitioner to pay deficit court fee under Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The petitioner had filed a suit for partition and possession of agricultural land, claiming a 1/4th share valued at Rs.4,60,000/-. The petitioner contended that the valuation was proper and that the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) were satisfied. The respondents argued that the court fee should be computed under Section 6(iv)(ha) which deals with suits for declaration of title. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the suit was for partition and possession, and the valuation under Section 6(iv)(d) was correct. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the trial court's order and directing that the suit proceed on the basis of the valuation already made.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Partition Suit - Valuation - Section 6(iv)(d) Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of agricultural land claiming 1/4th share valued at Rs.4,60,000/-. The trial court upheld the respondents' objection and directed payment of deficit court fee under Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d). The High Court held that the valuation was proper under Section 6(iv)(d) as the plaintiff sought possession of her share, and the market value of the share was correctly computed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee under Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, when the suit for partition and possession was valued at Rs.4,60,000/-.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, and directed that the suit proceed on the basis of the valuation already made.
Law Points
- Court fee valuation in partition suits
- Section 6(iv)(d) Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- market value of plaintiff's share
- agricultural land valuation
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 145
Writ Petition No. 4870 of 2009
R.L. Khapre, S.A. Mohta, R.G. Kavimandan, D.P. Jaiswal for petitioner; A.L. Deshpande for respondents No. 7, 8, 10 & 11
Ramkrushna Punjaji Wanare (deleted), Deorao Ramkrishna Wanare, Smt. Sunanda Gajanan Wanare, Sanjay Gajanan Wanare, Arvind Gajanan Wanare, Mangesh Gajanan Wanare, Smt. Kashibai Kisangopal Rathi, Madan Kisangopal Rathi, Sau. Sushila Purushottam Rathi, Sau. Usha Madan Rathi, Sau. Nita Ratan Rathi, Sau. Shakuntala Vasantrao Raut
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order on court fee valuation in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order directing payment of deficit court fee.
Filing Reason
The trial court upheld the respondents' objection to the valuation of court fee and directed the petitioner to pay deficit court fee under Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed order dated 02.09.2009 below Exh. 93.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee under Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit was properly valued at Rs.4,60,000/- under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Act.
Respondents contended that the court fee should be computed under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for partition and possession of agricultural land, court fee is payable under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on the market value of the plaintiff's share, and not under Section 6(iv)(ha) which applies to suits for declaration of title.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner – plaintiff has challenged the order dated 02.09.2009 passed below Exh. 93 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, upholding the objection to the valuation of Court Fee raised by the respondents and directing him to pay deficit court fee stamp as per provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that the objection raised before the trial Court is misconceived. The suit as valued at Rs.4,60,000/ is proper and provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) have been satisfied in the matter.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit for partition and possession of agricultural land. The respondents raised an objection to the valuation of court fee. The trial court upheld the objection and directed payment of deficit court fee. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959: 6(iv)(d), 6(iv)(ha)
