Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 1384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
J.H.BHATIA,J.
Sudhir Vasant Karnataki- Petitioner
Vs.
Yashwant Vasudeo Natu and others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 6567 OF 2010
Decided on : 28th September, 2010.
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr. G.S.Godbole, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a dispute over possession and valuation of a property, the Court fees must be paid based on the market value of the complete property if the plaintiff seeks possession of the entire property, not just their share.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Valuation of Suit Property - Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 - Section 6(v)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the valuation of the suit for the purpose of payment of Court fees. The suit involves a dispute over the possession and valuation of a property. The defendant No.1 had obtained a sale deed from the plaintiffs and their sons, leading to a dispute over possession and valuation of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court rejected the application filed by the defendant No.1, holding that the suit had been properly valued based on the 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the property. However, the High Court disagreed and held that the plaintiffs must pay Court fees based on the market value of the complete house, as they sought possession of the entire property, not just their 1/3rd share.
Issues: Dispute over the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of Court fees payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs must pay Court fees based on the market value of the complete house, as they sought possession of the entire property, not just their 1/3rd share.
Final Decision: The Writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The plaintiff shall make valuation of the property on the basis of the market value of the complete house of which they have sought possession and pay the Court fee accordingly.
- The suit property is CTS No. 1332 (1905 sq. mtrs.) with an old dwelling house (ground + first floor, ~675 sq. mtrs.); plaintiffs claim 1/3rd undivided share, no partition occurred. (!)
- Defendant No.1 obtained sale deeds for 2/3rd share earlier, then allegedly by threats/coercion got 1/3rd share sale deed (10.3.2008, consideration Rs.1,25,00,000/-) from plaintiffs and sons, took forcible possession with anti-social elements. (!) (!)
- Suit prayers include: (a) declare sale deed null/void; (b) Defendant No.1 give physical possession of suit land after demolishing works and constructing new 200 sq.m. carpet area building (plan from PMC); (c) pay Rs.15,80,000/- damages; also mesne profits, injunction. (!) (!)
- Suit valued for declaration/possession at Rs.1,25,00,000/- (1/3rd share value per sale deed), separate for damages/injunction; court fees paid accordingly. (!)
- Defendant No.1 objected to valuation, argued court fees on market value of complete property as possession of entire sought (including 2/3rd share). (!) (!)
- Trial court rejected objection, held valuation proper on plaintiffs' 1/3rd share. (!)
- Under Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 S.6(v), suits for possession of land/houses/gardens valued by subject-matter value: market value for house/garden; for land (assessed to revenue), multiples of survey assessment per sub-cls. (a)/(b)/(c). (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Per suit pleadings/property description (dwelling house + surrounding garden/premises, per prior suit/will), not revenue-assessed land; thus S.6(v) market value applies for house/garden possession, not revenue multiples. (!) (!)
- Plaintiffs seek possession of complete house (not just 1/3rd share), per prayers (b)/(c); thus suit valuation/court fees on market value of entire house (1/3rd valued Rs.1,25,00,000/- per sale deed). Declaration separately under S.6(iv)(ha). (!)
- Trial court erred in limiting to 1/3rd share court fees despite claim for complete possession; joint family property irrelevant to valuation where entire possession demanded. (!)
- Writ petition allowed; trial order set aside; plaintiffs to value suit on market value of complete house sought, pay court fees accordingly; liberty to amend plaint for 1/3rd share possession
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner before this Court is the original defendant No.1, who has challenged the valuation of the suit for the purpose of payment of Court fees. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the petition are the original plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of respondent No.1 and they were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit as they were not available to sign the plaint at that time. Respondent No.2 is wife of the respondent No.1. According to the plaintiffs they held 1/3rd share in the suit property bearing CTS No.1332 having total area of 1905 sq. mtrs. on which one old dwelling house consisting of ground and first floor having structure of about 675 sq. mtrs. was standing. The remaining 2/3rd share in the said property was held by the other relatives belonging to Natu family. Partition had never taken place and thus, the plaintiffs had 1/3rd undivided share in the said property. The defendant No.1 had got executed sale deeds from the shareholders of remaining 2/3rd share earlier without putting the property to partition. Thereafter, he by using threats, coercion and force, got the sale deed of remaining 1/3rd share executed by the plaintiffs and their sons on 10.3.2008 and with help of goondas and anti-social elements, he took forcible possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs filed Suit No.1132 of 2009 with several prayers. Prayer (a) was to declare the sale deed dated 10.3.2008 executed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 as illegal, null and void. Prayer clauses (b) and (c) read thus :-
b) The Defendant no.1 may be directed to give actual, physical possession of the suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint to the plaintiffs after demolishing / removing any construction or work made by him on the suit land and be directed to provide construction / building on the suit land admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. Carpet area after getting building plan sanctioned from Pune Municipal Corporation.
c) The defendant no.1 may be directed to pay to the plaintiffs Rs.15,80,000/- by way of damages as mentioned in Para 55 of the plaint."
By prayers (d) and (e), he sought future future mesne profits and damages. By prayer clause (f), the plaintiff sought perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1. The suit was valued for the purpose of declaration of the sale deed as null and void and for possession at Rs.1,25,00,000/-, for compensation at Rs. 15,80,000/- and for permanent injunction at Rs.1,000/- and accordingly the court fees was paid.
3. The defendant No.1 raised objection to the valuation. According to him, the consideration of the sale deed dated 10.3.2008 was Rs.1,25,00,000/-. However, the plaintiffs were also seeking possession of the complete property, including the 2/3rd share sold by the other shareholders in the property. That 2/3rd share was also required to be valued at market value and the suit has to be valued and Court fees has to be paid on the basis of the value of the complete property. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the defendant No.1 holding that the suit has been properly valued in view of 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the suit property and that value of the 1/3rd share was Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The defendant No.1 has challenged that order in the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the defendant No1/petitioner also contended that when the suit is filed for possession of land, house and garden, the valuation has to be made as per Section 6(v) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (the Act) and this valuation must be the market value of the house and garden. On the other hand, Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that as far as the suit for declaration that the sale deed is null and void, the valuation has to be made as per the provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Act, but as far
