JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---This is an appeal by the original plaintiff. She filed a suit being Short Cause Suit No. 3230 of 1989, in the Bombay City Civil Court, at Bombay, apparently, for specific performance of an agreement dated 21-2-1983 together with the agreement dated 4-8-1980 and sought a decree for possession of a flat bearing No. 11, on the first floor of the building known as Mary Apartments, situated at Borivali, Bombay.

2. The consideration mentioned in the agreement is about Rs. 87,000/-. When the plaintiff took out a notice of motion for interim reliefs, the defendants contended that the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Naturally, the learned Judge had to decide that question under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated 17-7-1989 held that the Court has no jurisdiction and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the proper Court. This appeal is against this judgment and order.

3. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to enforce the obligations on the part of the defendants under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ownership Flats Act"). She has further stated that there is no provision under the Bombay Court-Fees Act providing for fees payable in such a suit and that, therefore, she has valued the suit under the provision of section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, and has, therefore, valued the subject matter of the suit at Rs. 300/- and has paid the Court-fees thereon.

3-A. As against this, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the suit is essentially a suit for specific performance of a contract and that, therefore, the same has to be valued as provided under section 6(xi) of the Bombay Court- Fees Act, 1959, and in that event, the subject matter of the suit will have to be valued according to the amount of the consideration of the agreement.

4. In support of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiffs has mainly relied on a solitary judgment in the case of (Vrindavan (Borivali) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Karmarkar Bros.)1, reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. 607 : 1983(2) Bom.C.R. 267. That was a case where a certain co-operative housing society filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay against a builder, who was also the owner of the plot and also against certain other defendants, who were flat owners, who had taken flats under agreements from the builders, praying for a decree that the defendants, by an order and mandatory injunction of the Court, be directed, in substance, to comply with the requirements of the said Ownership Flats Act, and also for a further declaration that defendant No. 1, the builder, was liable to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs in accordance with section 11 of the said Ownership Flats Act and also for certain other consequential reliefs. The suit was valued at Rs. 300/- on the basis that the subject matter was not capable of monetary valuation and Court-fees was paid accordingly. The learned Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, held that the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, inasmuch as, the consideration amount of the conveyance would work out to more than Rs. 2 lakhs perhaps being the total purchase price of all the flats paid by the purchasers of the flats, and accordingly had passed an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. However, this High Court held that in substance, as the plaintiff was seeking enforcement of the obligations of the defendants under sections 4, 10, 11 and 12 of the Ownership Flats Act, the suit could not be said to be a suit for specific performance of an ordinary contract of sale and that the relief which the plaintiff was claiming was enfo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document