Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, returning the plaint to the appellant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for presentation to the proper court. The respondent no.1, a promoter, had proposed to develop a property at Mahim and had agreed to sell Unit 401 to the appellant, a former tenant, for a concessional price under an agreement dated 2 March 2000. Alleging breach, the appellant filed Suit No.3703 of 2007 for a declaration that the agreement was valid and for a direction to respondent no.1 to perform statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The suit was valued at Rs.1,000 under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. During the suit, the appellant discovered that respondent no.1 had already sold the entire 4th floor, including Unit 401, to respondent nos.2 and 3 under an agreement dated 7 August 2006. The appellant amended the plaint, joined the purchasers as defendants, and added a prayer (bi) seeking a declaration that the 7 August 2006 agreement was invalid, bad in law, and non est. The respondent nos.2 and 3 contended that the amended plaint now required valuation under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act because it sought avoidance of a contract for sale, and since the property was worth Rs.13,50,000, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court (limited to Rs.50,000) was exceeded. The trial court accepted this objection and ordered return of the plaint. In appeal, the appellant argued that prayer (bi) was incapable of monetary valuation and ancillary to the main MOFA relief, thus still governed by Section 6(iv)(j). The Bombay High Court, per D.G. Karnik, J., held that the prayer for declaration of invalidity of the subsequent sale agreement was a distinct subject and must be separately valued under Section 6(iv)(ha) which prescribes court fee at one-half ad valorem on the property value. Section 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act requires aggregation of court fees for distinct subjects. The decision in Abdul Gaffar v. Niranjan Kumar, AIR 2005 Bom 259 was followed. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 stipulates that for ad valorem suits the valuation for court fees and jurisdiction is identical, so the City Civil Court lost jurisdiction once the valuation exceeded Rs.50,000. The appeal was dismissed, but the operation of the order was stayed for four weeks to enable the appellant to pursue further remedies, and respondents were restrained from creating third party interests in the suit premises during that period.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Suit for Enforcement of MOFA Obligations - Section 6(iv)(j) Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - A suit merely for declaration that an agreement of sale by a promoter is valid and for a direction to the promoter to perform statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 is incapable of monetary valuation and falls under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959; the suit as originally framed was properly valued at Rs. 1,000/- (Paras 3,4). B) Court Fees - Amendment Adding Declaration of Invalidity - Sections 18 and 6(iv)(ha) Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - When an amendment introduces a prayer for a declaration that a subsequent sale agreement between defendants is invalid, bad in law and non est, it constitutes a distinct subject; Section 18 mandates aggregate court fees for such distinct reliefs; such a prayer squarely falls under sub-clause (ha) of clause (iv) of Section 6, as it seeks avoidance of a contract for sale, and court fee is one-half of ad valorem fee leviable on the value of the property (Paras 5,6,7). C) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Section 8 Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - In suits governed by clause (ha) of Section 6(iv) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 where court fee is ad valorem, the value for computation of court fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same; once the valuation exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, the City Civil Court ceases to have pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint must be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Para 8). D) Appellate Order - Dismissal - The order of the trial court returning the plaint was upheld; appeal dismissed but operation of the order stayed for four weeks to enable the appellant to pursue remedies, with a direction that respondents shall not create any third party interest in the suit premises for the same period (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for declaration that the subsequent sale agreement executed by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3 was invalid rendered the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, and whether such relief required separate valuation under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the City Civil Court returning the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is upheld. The valuation for prayer (bi) falls under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the City Civil Court's pecuniary jurisdiction is exceeded. Operation of the order stayed for four weeks to enable appellant to pursue remedies, and respondents restrained from creating third party interests in suit premises for four weeks.
Law Points
- Suit for enforcement of promoter's statutory obligations under MOFA is valued under Section 6(iv)(j) of Bombay Court Fees Act
- Amendment adding prayer for declaration that sale agreement is invalid constitutes distinct relief
- Section 18 of Bombay Court Fees Act requires aggregation of court fees for distinct subjects
- Prayer for declaration of invalidity of contract for sale falls under Section 6(iv)(ha) of Bombay Court Fees Act
- Valuation for court fee and jurisdiction is same under Section 8 of Suits Valuation Act
- 1887 for ad valorem fees
- If valuation exceeds Rs. 50
- 000
- City Civil Court loses pecuniary jurisdiction
