JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---The often raised familiar question of law placed before me by way of this revision, relates to the payment of Court fees under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 ("the Act" for short) in a suit seeking specific performance of contract of sale coupled with relief of declaration that sale in favour of subsequent transferee is bad, illegal and void.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The background facts are as under :

The plaintiff on 28-1-1999 filed the suit begin Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1999 for specific performance of contract of sale dated 28-5-1982 on the allegations that the original defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2 herein Owner of the suit property having executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff not only failed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but sold the said suit property to the original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by registered sale deed dated 6-7-1989 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and delivered possession thereof.

3. It was further alleged that part of the suit property admeasuring an area of 19 ares was purchased by the original defendant No. 6 (present petitioner) for a consideration of Rs. 4,80,000/-, on 8-1-1998; out of which whereas the original defendant Nos. 13 and 14 purchased area of about 6.3 ares for the consideration of Rs. 2,11,000/-, on 27-4-1998.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against his vendor and also arrayed subsequent transferees as co-defendants and claimed specific performance of the contract of the agreement of sale dated 28-5-1982 and prayed for cancellation of sale deeds obtained by the subsequent transferees viz. present petitioner as also original defendant/respondent Nos. 13 14 and by way of alternate relief prayed for compensation equivalent to the market value of the suit property.

5. On being noticed, the defendants appeared and raised an objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division to entertain and try the said suit, on the ground that the suit claim has been grossly undervalued, and that the proper Court fees has not been paid. The trial Court framed following preliminary issues :

(i) Whether the suit claim is properly valued ?

(ii) Whether proper Court fees is paid thereon? and

(iii) Whether the trial Court has a pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit ?

The trial Court held that the suit claim was properly valued. The Court fee paid thereon was proper. There was no undervaluation of suit claim. As a sequitur of these findings, the trial Court recorded further finding that it had a jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit claim. The trial Court was of the view that the substantive suit was for specific performance of the contract dated 28-05-1982 and the reliefs seeking declaration of illegality with regard to subsequent transfers and damages were but they were claimed by way of ancillary reliefs. Thus the trial Court vide its order dated 06-09-1999 rejected the objections raised by the defendant No. 6. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

6. In order to decide the question of valuation of the suit, it is necessary to examine the plaint allegations and the relief claimed in the suit. The sum and substance of the allegations and averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the plaintiff is entitled to purchase the suit property on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 28-05-1982 and that after execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, the suit property was sold by the respondent No. 2 original owner to the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, and thereafter the part of the suit property was further sold by the subsequent transferee i.e. defendant No. 6 (present revision petitioner) to respondent Nos. 13 14 and, consequently, the declaration of nullity of the sale-deed was sought in the suit. The plaintiff had, therefore, prayed for the reliefs in the following words :

i. The defendant No. 1 may be directed to execute a Sale Deed of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document