Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1) seeking a declaration that a sale deed of suit property is void, illegal, and not binding on him and his legal heirs. The suit was valued at Rs.1,60,000/- based on the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed. The defendants (applicants herein), being defendant Nos.2 and 3, filed an application before the trial court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Katol) praying that an inquiry be made regarding the market value of the suit property to ascertain proper court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court rejected that application by order dated 6.9.2012. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order. The applicants argued that under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Court-Fees Act, 1959, the trial court was obliged to hold an inquiry into valuation. They relied on the decision in Miss Aninha D'Costa vs. Mrs. Parvatibai M. Thakur, AIR 1966 Bombay 113. The High Court heard both sides and held that Section 8 of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The trial court, in its discretion, found no reason to doubt the plaintiff's valuation based on the sale deed consideration. The High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Fees - Valuation - Section 8 of Maharashtra Court-Fees Act, 1959 - Discretionary Power - The trial court has discretion under Section 8 to inquire into valuation of suit property; it is not mandatory to hold such inquiry merely because a party applies. The court may refuse if it finds no reason to doubt the plaintiff's valuation. (Paras 2-4) B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Jurisdiction - Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Interference with Discretionary Order - A revisional court will not interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court unless it is shown to be perverse, illegal, or based on no material. The trial court's refusal to hold valuation inquiry was within its discretion and not erroneous. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was bound to hold an inquiry into the market value of the suit property under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Court-Fees Act, 1959 upon the application of the defendants, and whether the impugned order rejecting such application suffers from any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness warranting revision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order dated 6.9.2012 rejecting the defendants' application for inquiry into valuation. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 8 of Maharashtra Court-Fees Act
- 1959 is discretionary
- not mandatory
- valuation for court fees and jurisdiction in suit for declaration that sale deed is void is based on the value of the subject matter as per plaintiff's valuation
- trial court's refusal to hold inquiry into valuation is not illegal or improper if no jurisdictional error.
