A suit to enforce the compliance with a statute, where the subject-matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation, is properly valued under section 6(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Headnote:
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 6(J) - MAHARASHTRA OWNERSHIP FLATS (REGULATION OF THE PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION, SALE, MANAGEMENT AND TRANSFER) ACT, 1963 - SECTIONS 4, 10, 11, 12 - SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES PAYABLE.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a registered co-operative society, filed a suit against the defendant, a firm of builders, and other flat owners for declaration that the society is a co-operative society, mandatory injunction against the flat owners to become members of the society, and a declaration that the defendants are liable to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the society. The suit was valued at Rs. 300/- and court fees were paid accordingly.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit was not a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, but rather a suit to enforce the compliance with a statute, namely, the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. The court found that the obligations flowing from the agreement referred to in section 4 read with section 11 of the Act were statutory and the performance of which could be claimed by the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was properly valued under section 6(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act? 2. Whether the suit was a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale or a suit to enforce the compliance with a statute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was properly valued under section 6(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which provides for ad valorem fee payable, as if the amount or value of the subject matter was three hundred rupees, in suits where a declaration is sought, with or without injunction or other consequential relief and the subject-matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and which are not otherwise provided for by the Act. 2. The court held that the suit was not a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, but rather a suit to enforce the compliance with a statute, namely, the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. The court found that the obligations flowing from the agreement referred to in section 4 read with section 11 of the Act were statutory and the performance of which could be claimed by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial judge, and directed the plaintiff to swear the plaint within 15 days from the time when the writ of the court reaches the City Civil Court, Bombay. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months from the time when the writ of the court reaches the lower court.

JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE, J.:---This is an appeal against an order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the suit is valued beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The order returning the plaint was passed on March 16, 1978.

2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal against the aforesaid order. This appeal was heard by my learned brother but hearing could not be completed and during the hearing my learned brother orally expressed that the amendment of plaint would be necessary to decide the controversy in the suit and thereafter a draft plaint was allowed to be submitted which draft plaint in record. It is on the basis of this amendment plaint that I propose to decide this appeal.

3. The appellant is a registered co-operative society by name Vrindavan (Borivali) Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which was formed on March 4, 1978. Defendant No. 1 are M/s. Karmarkar Brothers, a firm carrying on business at Odhavaji Wadi, Kasturba 1st Cross Road, Borivali (E), Bombay 400 066. Respondents 2 to 10 are the flat owners who have taken flats under an agreement from respondent No. 1.

4. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit bearing No. 565 of 1974 in the City Civil Court at Bombay of declaration that plaintiffs-society is a co-operative society and for mandatory in junction against defendant Nos. 2 to 10 to become members of the plaintiff society and for further declaration that the members of the plaintiff society had paid the entire amount of their purchase price to defendant No. 1 pursuant to the agreement of sale and defendant No. 1 are liable to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of plaintiff. It was further prayed that the plaintiffs society through its members is in possession of the said building known as 'Umanagar' situated at Kasturba 1st Cross Road, Borivali (E), Bombay-66 and also prayed for injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining of disturbing the possession of the plaintiff-society or its members.

5. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement for sale with the members of the plaintiffs-society and defendant Nos. 2 to 10 under which the defendant No. 1 agreed to transfer and assign and convey all the rights, title and interest in the suit building to the co-operative society. The plaintiff further alleged that in Clause 22 of the agreement it was provided that the party of the 1st part shall transfer and assign all rights, title and interest in the said plot described in Schedule 'B' hereunder written in the building to be constructed thereon to the said co-operative society. The necessary documents of the transfer of the said property shall be prepared by the attorney-Advocate of the party of the 1st part. The party of the second part along with rest of the acquires of the said flat in the said building will form and join the co-operative society and on completion of the building and on receipt of the party of the 1st part of full price of all tenants which the party of the first part shall be entitled to receive in terms of the said agreement and similar agreement with the flat owners the party of the 1st part shall transfer and assign all the right, title and interest to the said co-operative society.

6. Then in para 7 the plaintiff further stated that defendant No. 1 failed to perform the obligations under the agreement as well as under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (herein referred to as the said Act) and failed to pay the water charges though the payments were overdue. Therefore, the members of the plaintiffs-society started depositing the out goings after forming an association with the plaintiffs-society and registration of the society paid the charge of the entire building and property taxes of their flats.

7. Then it was stated that the plaintiff called upon defendant No. 1 to form the co-operatives society and comply with all ob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document