1. Admit.

Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.

2. The issue that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Application is :

Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under provisions of Order-VII, Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

3. The Applicant-defendant is the son of the Non-applicant-plaintiff. It is the case of the Non-applicant that she was the owner of two agricultural fields and a residential house. The husband of the non-applicant used to remain ill, due to which the applicant had come to the house so as to render him treatment. According to the non-applicant, her husband expired on 1st October, 2012 and that just prior to his death, the applicant had got prepared a Gift-Deed dated 29th June, 2012 without her consent. As per said Gift-Deed, field Gat No.67 was shown to have been gifted by the Non-applicant in favour of the applicant. On that basis, the non-applicant filed suit for declaration that the Gift-Deed dated 29th June, 2012 was null and void and was not liable to be acted upon. Cancellation of said Gift-Deed was sought with a further prayer that the applicant be injuncted permanently from disturbing her possession or from creating third-party rights.

4. On being noticed, the applicant filed his Written Statement and opposed the claim as made. He also filed an application below Exh.48 stating that the claim had been undervalued by the non-applicant. According to him, as per provisions of Section 6 (iv) (d) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 [for short “the said Act”] as the relief of declaration of ownership was sought, the court fee on the basis of market value of the property was liable to be paid. It was stated that in the said Gift-Deed, the market value had been shown to be Rs. 1,71,000-00 and, therefore, the non-applicant ought to have paid half of the ad valorem court fee on said amount. This application was opposed by the non-applicant and by the impugned order, the trial Court rejected said application by observing that the plaint was properly valued under provisions of Section 6 (iv) (j) of the said Act. Being aggrieved, the original defendant has filed the present Revision Application.

5. Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that in the Gift-Deed dated 29th June, 2012, the market value of the field Survey No. 67 was shown to be Rs.1,71,000-00. As the plaintiff was seeking a declaration that the Gift-Deed was null and void and that the plaintiff was the lawful owner and possessor of the suit property, the plaint ought to have been valued under provisions of Section 6 (iv) (d) of the said Act. He also referred to the third proviso of the aforesaid provision to urge that the claim had been undervalued. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments in [1] Pushparaj Surajprasad Modh Vs. Sayyad Altaf Sayyad Wazir & others [2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 492], and [2] G.V. Iyengar & another Vs. A.R. Sampathkumar & others [2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 621]. He, however, fairly brought to the notice of the Court the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in Sanatkumar Bhikhabhai Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat & others [ (1967) 8 GLR 946], wherein it was held by learned Single Judge of the Gujrat High Court that in a suit of such nature, what was questioned was the transaction of the Gift- Deed and not the title to the immovable property.

6. Shri U. J. Deshpande, learned counsel for the non-applicant, supported the impugned order. He referred to the averments in the plaint to submit that the non-applicant was in possession of the suit property and that threats of dispossession were being given by the applicant. He submitted that the cause of action for filing the suit was the fraudulent execution of the Gift-Deed and, therefore, the suit had been rightly valued under provisions of Section 6 (iv) (j) of the said Act as the subject matter in dispute was not susceptible to monetary evaluation.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for