Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Smt. Hema Valecha, filed a Chamber Summons challenging an order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the learned Taxing Master of the Bombay High Court. The Taxing Master directed the plaintiff to pay court fees on the current market value of the property under Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The plaintiff had filed Suit (L) No. 2268 of 2010 seeking reliefs in respect of the same property that was the subject matter of an earlier Suit No. 2541 of 1984. In the earlier suit, a consent decree was passed on 1st September 2005 declaring that a conveyance dated 7th April 1981 was subsisting and that the plaintiffs therein were sole and absolute owners of the suit property. The plaintiff in the present suit claimed that she and her late husband were not parties to that earlier suit and that the consent decree was not binding on them. The Taxing Master held that the plaintiff must pay court fees on the current market value of the property. The plaintiff argued that the consent decree had already determined the ownership and value, but the court rejected this contention. The court held that the consent decree in the prior suit did not determine the court fee liability in the subsequent suit and that the Taxing Master had correctly applied Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The court dismissed the Chamber Summons, upholding the Taxing Master's order.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Valuation - Section 5 Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - Plaintiff challenged order of Taxing Master directing payment of court fees on current market value of property - Court held that the consent decree in prior suit did not affect the court fee liability in the subsequent suit - Taxing Master correctly applied Section 5 - Plaintiff must pay court fees on current market value (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay court fees on the current market value of the property under Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, despite a consent decree in a prior suit declaring the plaintiff's ownership.
Final Decision
Chamber Summons dismissed. Order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the Taxing Master directing plaintiff to pay court fees on current market value of property under Section 5 of Bombay Court Fees Act is upheld.
Law Points
- Court fees must be paid on current market value of property under Section 5 of Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- Consent decree in prior suit does not determine court fee liability in subsequent suit
- Taxing Master has jurisdiction to decide court fee valuation
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 84
Chamber Summons No. 1296 of 2011 in Suit (L) No. 2268 of 2010
Mr. A.P. Wachasunder, alongwith Mr. Navin Lond i/by M/s. Meghraj & Associates for the plaintiff. Smt. Uma Srivastava, Officer Taxing Master, High Court, present.
Smt. Hema w/o. Late Shri Dilip Valecha
Nasi M. Randelia, Dara N. Sarkari, M/s. Unique Construction, Trishul Construction Company
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Chamber Summons challenging order of Taxing Master directing payment of court fees on current market value of property.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought to set aside the order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the Taxing Master directing payment of court fees on current market value.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff challenged the Taxing Master's order requiring court fees to be paid on current market value of property under Section 5 of Bombay Court Fees Act.
Previous Decisions
Taxing Master passed order dated 2nd May 2011 directing plaintiff to pay court fees as per current market value of property.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay court fees on the current market value of the property under Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Whether the consent decree in prior suit No. 2541 of 1984 affects the court fee liability in the present suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that the consent decree in prior suit had already determined the ownership and value, and thus court fees should not be on current market value.
Taxing Master submitted that court fees must be paid on current market value as per Section 5 of Bombay Court Fees Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The consent decree in a prior suit does not determine the court fee liability in a subsequent suit. The Taxing Master correctly applied Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, requiring court fees to be paid on the current market value of the property.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Chamber summons, plaintiff impugned the order dated 2nd May, 2011 passed by the learned Taxing Master of this court directing at the plaintiff to pay court fees as per current market value of the property under section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Suit (L) No. 2268 of 2010. Taxing Master passed order on 2nd May 2011 directing plaintiff to pay court fees on current market value. Plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No. 1296 of 2011 challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the Chamber Summons on 24th July 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959: Section 5
