2021 Supreme(Bom) 236
S.J.KATHAWALLA, MILIND N.JADHAV
Zuberahmed Maqbool Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Devkaran and Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Uttam S. Rane.
For the Respondent: Mr. Karl Tamboly.
Judgement Key Points
- The suit concerns a gala admeasuring 204 sq. mtrs. (carpet area) at Nenshi Munji Compound, Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka, Andheri, Mumbai, part of larger property owned by Plaintiff since 1968. (!) [4000643570002]
- Plaintiff permitted Defendants 4 and 5 to occupy suit premises for businesses: Defendant 4 for storing iron girders (A.H. Traders, 10 years), Defendant 5 for furniture store (K.G.N. Furniture, 5 years). (!)
- Defendants 1 and 2 attempted forcible trespass in 2018 and 2020, leading to police complaints and FIR quashed by consent after admissions in Writ Petition No. 1059/2019 that Defendant 1 not owner. (!) (!)
- Plaintiff discovered registered agreement for sale dated 01.08.2019 between Defendants 1 and 2 for suit premises based on fraudulent documents; lodged complaints. (!) (!)
- Suit prays: (a) declaration of Plaintiff's absolute ownership; (b) agreement for sale void ab initio; (c) Defendants 1/2 no right/title/interest; (d)-(e) cancellation and record thereof; (f) other documents void; (g)-(h) permanent restraints on reliance/dealing/interference. [4000643570003] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Interim relief granted restraining Defendants 1/2 from dealing/entering suit premises pending suit. [4000643570006]
- Appellant (Defendant 2) challenges on pecuniary jurisdiction: suit primarily for cancellation of agreement valued at Rs. 26,50,000/- under S.6(iv)(ha) Maharashtra Court Fees Act, below High Court limit (Rs.1 crore). [4000643570009][4000643570010] (!) (!) (!)
- Plaintiff values suit at market value Rs.2,52,91,000/- per ready reckoner/adjudication under S.6(iv)(d), paid max court fee Rs.3,00,000/-. (!) [4000643570011] (!)
- Suit principally for declaration of Plaintiff's title/ownership to immovable property with consequential reliefs (cancellation, injunction), falls under S.6(iv)(d): 1/2 ad valorem fee on market value (no possession sought). Not under S.6(iv)(ha) for voiding sale/contract. [4000643570016][4000643570017][4000643570018][4000643570019][4000643570020][4000643570021] (!) (!) (!) (!)
- "Value of property" in S.6(iv)(d)/(ha) means market value (ready reckoner Rs.2,52,91,000/-, adjudication/stamp duty Rs.15,17,460/- confirms), not agreement consideration Rs.26,50,000/- (undervaluation). [4000643570022][4000643570023][4000643570024][4000643570025][4000643570026][4000643570027] (!)
- S.8 Suits Valuation Act mandates court-fee value = jurisdictional value; court not bound by party's valuation if deliberate undervaluation. [4000643570028] (!)
- High Court has pecuniary jurisdiction; appeal/IA dismissed. No opinion on merits. [4000643570033][4000643570034][4000643570035]
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Karl Tamboly, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant/original Defendant No. 2 has challenged the legality and validity of the ad-interim order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Interim Application No. 2653 of 2020 in Suit (L) No. 2648 of 2020 granting a temporary protective injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1/original Plaintiff. The principal, and only ground on which the order impugned in the present Appeal has been assailed before us, is that the suit is not maintainable in this court due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. Before we advert to the submissions made by the respective parties, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the following relevant facts:
“3.1. The present suit bearing lodging no. 2653 of 2020 has been filed by Respondent No. 1/original Plaintiff Company in respect of a Gala ad-measuring 204 sq. mtrs. (carpet area) consisting of ground plus mezzanine floor, situated at Nenshi Munji Compound, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Ansa “C” Building, Saki Naka, Andheri, Mumbai 400 072 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit premise
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
