JUDGMENT :- . Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioner, who is an old lady aged about 85 years, is admittedly widow of one Keshav Joshi. Respondent no. 1 is her son. She has one more son. She filed Special Civil Suit no. 12 of 2005 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent no. 1 from interfering in her possession over the disputed property. The property consist of a house bearing city survey no.666/KA situated within the limits of Panvel Municipal Council. Admittedly, this property originally belonged to her husband Keshav Joshi, who died on 9th July, 1987. Keshav Joshi has left behind the petitioner as a widow, two sons, namely, Arun and Vilas and three married daughters. Arun is the defendant. According to the petitioner/plaintiff on 26th October, 1987 the defendant and her other children executed the document whereby they surrendered their rights in the property left behind by her husband and thus she claims to be exclusive owner of the said property. Recently the defendant has started to harass her and to cause interference in her possession over the property. Therefore, she filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The property is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee at Rs.77,23,000/- and in a normal circumstances the plaintiff would be liable to pay court fees of Rs.1,07,106/-. However, the plaintiff, being a woman, claimed exemption from payment of court fees by virtue of a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The defendant opposed the prayer for exemption from payment of the court fees. According to him, she was entitled to get her 1/6th share of the property of her husband and as she has claimed remaining property on the basis of registered documents, she cannot get exemption from the payment of court fees in respect of whole of the property.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel upheld the contention of defendant no. 1 and held that the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of court fee only to the extent of 1/6th share, but she has to pay court fee for the remaining 5/6th shares of the property and directed her to pay the court fee accordingly within one month, failing which the plaint was directed to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 empowers the State Government to remit the fees mentioned in the first Schedule of the said Act by notification of the Official Gazette, if any.

7. Admittedly, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Notification no. G.N.R. & F.D.NO.STP. 1094/CR-859/m-1, dated 1st October, 1994. By that Notification the Government of Maharashtra remitted the fees payable by women litigants on any of the plaint, applications, petitions, Memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the First and Second schedule of the Bombay Court Fees Act to be filed in any Civil, Family or Criminal courts in respect of the cases relating to (a) maintenance, (b) property disputes, (c) violence and (d) divorce. It was noticed that the benefit of the exemption was being taken in filing the suits in respect of the commercial or business transactions also. Therefore explanation was added to the said notification by another notification dated 23rd March, 2000. Explanation reads as follows :- "EXPLANATION :- The expression ‘property disputes’ shall mean property disputes arising out of concerning matrimonial matters." The expression ‘property disputes’ shall mean property disputes arising out of or concerning matrimonial matters. In view of this amendmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document