Amendments to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, made by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1970, were not retrospective in effect.

Headnote:
COURT FEES - BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959 - SECTION 6(IV)(HA) - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887 - SECTION 9 - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT - PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR DECLARATION THAT MORTGAGES AND AUCTION SALE ARE VOID - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES PAYABLE - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking a declaration that certain mortgages and an auction sale were void and not binding on them. The suit property was valued at Rs. 96,000, and the plaintiffs paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 30 under Section 6(iv)(i) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, as the subject matter was incapable of monetary valuation. The trial court ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the subject matter of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiffs appealed.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the amendments made to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1970, were not retrospective in effect. Therefore, the present suit continued to be governed by Section 6(iv)(i) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, as it stood prior to the amendment. The court also held that the suit was governed by Article 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 80,000. Therefore, the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendments made to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1970, were retrospective in effect. 2. Whether the suit was governed by Article 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. 3. Whether the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 80,000.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendments made to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1970, were not retrospective in effect because: a) There was an inconsistency between the provisions of Section 4 of the amending Act and the material part of Section 6(2)(b) of the same Act in the case of suits like the present one. b) The intention of the Legislature to give retrospective effect was duly carried out by the provisions of Section 6 of the amending Act. 2. The court held that the suit was governed by Article 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, because: a) The relief claimed in prayer (b) of the plaint, which sought a declaration that the auction sale was void and not binding on the plaintiffs, was capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss. b) The plaintiffs themselves had valued the suit property at Rs. 96,000 in paragraph 10 of the plaint. 3. The court held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 80,000 because: a) The plaintiffs, between them, had a five-sixth share in the suit property. b) The sum of Rs. 48,000, which the property fetched at the auction sale, could not be taken into account for the purpose of valuation because it went to the mortgagees and not to the mortgagors or their representatives.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial court that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against an order passed by Judge Suresh of the Bombay City Civil Court on the 5th of April 1971 ordering the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The six plaintiffs and the 7th defendant are members of a joint and undivided Hindu family defendant No. 7 being the father of plaintiffs Nos.3 to 6. In the year 1953 defendant No. 7, and the plaintiffs grandmother one Laxmibai, as well as Premlal the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and their uncle Kishanlal, purported to mortgage the suit property which is situated at Dadar in Bombay, and it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the said mortgage was executed without legal necessity and is not binding upon them. The said mortgage was transferred from time to time and further charges were created on the said property in respect of further advances, and defendants Nos 1 to 5 ultimately had the mortgagees interest in the said property vested in them. The suit property was put up for auction by defendants Nos. 1 to 5, in purported exercise of the powers conferred under the deeds of mortgage and further charges, on the 19th of September 1967, and it was purchased at the auction by the 6th defendant for a sum of Rs. 48,000. It may be mentioned that it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the said property was actually worth as much as Rs. 96,000/-. It may also be mentioned that all the six plaintiffs were minors at the time of execution of the purported deeds of mortgage and further charges, and it is the contention of plaintiffs that defendant No. 7 was at no time the Karta of their joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs also contend that the said purported mortgage, further charges as well as the alienation at the auction sale were without legal necessity and were fraudulent and the same were not binding upon them. They have, therefore, filed the present suit on 25th October 1967 raying, (a) for a declaration that the purported mortgages and transfers of mortgages in respect of the suit property are void, invalid, inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon them; and (b) for a declaration that the auction sale of the suit property held on the 19th of September 1967 is also void, invalid, inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon them. Prayer (c) appears to be a Deed of Assignment dated 28th December 1967, executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 5 as well as by defendants No. 6, defendants Nos. 8 to 10 purported to acquire the rights of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 in the said property.

2. The plaintiffs had paid a fixed court-fee of Rs.30 in respect of this suit on the ground that the subject-matter thereof was incapable of monetary valuation and was, therefore, liable to that fixed court-fee under Section 6 (iv) (i of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, as it hen stood. Thereafter this Court, by its judgment D/- 15-10-1968 in L.P.A. No. 44 of 1968 (reported in ILR (1970) Born 1341) held that where the subject-matter of a suit was not capable of being estimated in money value, it could not be said that the money value of such suit was less than the money value, it could not be said that the money value of such suit was less than Rs. 25,000/- and such a suit was ordered by Judge S.K. Desai (now Mr. Justice Desai) on 26th March 1969 to be returned to the proper Court. In point of fact, the said plaint was, however not returned and remanded to be returned to the plaintiffs when the amendments effected in the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 as well as in the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1970 came into force. The amending Act sought to nullify the effect of the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 44 of 1968 which has been referred to above. The material provisions of the amending Act, as far as the present case is concerned, are that in Section 6 of the Bombay Court-fees Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document