Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Niraj Walle, filed a suit for declaration that a sale deed dated 24th December 2010 is null and void and not binding on him. He is not the executant of the sale deed and does not seek possession of the property. The trial court directed him to compute court fees based on the valuation of the sale deed, and later rejected his review application. The petitioner challenged both orders in this writ petition. The legal issue was whether a plaintiff who is not the executant of a sale deed and does not seek possession is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The petitioner argued that he is not the executant and does not seek possession, so he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee, relying on Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh. The respondent argued that Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act applies, which requires one-half ad valorem fee on the value of the property. The Court examined the provisions and found that the judgment in Suhrid Singh clinches the issue. The Court held that the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee as he is not the executant and does not seek possession. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Suit for Declaration - Ad Valorem Fee - Section 6(iv)(ha) Maharashtra Court Fees Act - The issue was whether a plaintiff who is not the executant of a sale deed and does not seek possession is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property. The Court held that the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee as he is not the executant and does not seek possession, relying on the principle in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a plaintiff who is not the executant of a sale deed and does not seek possession is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 30th August 2013 and order rejecting review application (Exh. No.47) are quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the court fee issue afresh in light of the observations in this judgment.
Law Points
- Court fees
- Suit for declaration
- Ad valorem fee
- Non-executant plaintiff
- Section 6(iv)(ha) Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- Section 7(iv)(c) Court Fees Act 1870
- Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 108
Writ Petition No.1075/2016
Shri S.D. Chande for petitioner, Shri Saurabh A. Chaudhari for respondent No.5
Smt. Vijaya W/o Narendra Walle, Bharti D/o Narendra Walle, Sou. Namrata Shashikant Rawane, Sou. Nita Ashish Kanhed, Dr. Durgasingh Ravindrasingh Gautam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging trial court orders directing payment of ad valorem court fee in a suit for declaration that a sale deed is null and void.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of trial court order dated 30th August 2013 directing computation of court fees based on sale deed valuation and order rejecting review application (Exh. No.47).
Filing Reason
Petitioner, as plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a sale deed is null and void, was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property, which he challenged on the ground that he is not the executant of the sale deed and does not seek possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court passed order on 30th August 2013 directing plaintiff to compute court fees based on valuation of sale deed dated 24th December 2010. Plaintiff's review application (Exh. No.47) was rejected.
Issues
Whether a plaintiff who is not the executant of a sale deed and does not seek possession is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is not the executant of the sale deed and does not seek possession, so he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee, relying on Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh.
Respondent No.5 argued that Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act applies, requiring one-half ad valorem fee on the value of the property, and that the provision in Suhrid Singh is different.
Ratio Decidendi
A plaintiff who is not the executant of a sale deed and does not seek possession is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The principle from Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh applies.
Judgment Excerpts
Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property. But where the plaintiff is not the executant and does not seek possession, he is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed suit for declaration that sale deed dated 24th December 2010 is null and void. Trial court on 30th August 2013 directed petitioner to compute court fees based on valuation of sale deed. Petitioner filed review application (Exh. No.47) which was rejected. Petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging both orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act: Section 6(iv)(ha)
- Court Fees Act, 1870: Section 7(iv)(c)
