The main legal principle established in the judgment is the distinction between the court fee payable for a suit for declaration of sale deed by a Plaintiff who is a party to the sale deed and a Plaintiff who is not a party to the sale deed, as governed by Section 6(iv)(ha) and Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Sewlikar, J.

1 . The matter is referred by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for deciding the following issue:-

"What is the court fee payable in regard to a suit for declaration that the sale deed, to which the Plaintiffs are not privy/party is void and not binding on the Plaintiffs, and for consequential relief of injunction?"

2. Few facts for deciding this reference can be stated as below:-

3. The Petitioners herein are the Original Plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 267 of 2014 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Shrirampur, District - Ahmednagar.

4. The Petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 is not binding on the Plaintiffs and for cancellation of mutation entry on the basis of the sale deed and for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from creating encumbrance and interfering in the possession of the Plaintiffs over the disputed property Gat No. 56/1 admeasuring 4 H 94 R.

5. Summonses were issued to the Defendants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein) by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Shrirampur. The Defendants caused their appearance at Exhibit 25 in the record of the Trial Court, Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application stating therein that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 12,05,000/-.Therefore, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Shrirampur has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6 . Plaintiffs filed say to this application and contended that the sale deed has been executed by the persons who are not the owners of the disputed property. Relief claimed is that the sale deed is not binding on the Plaintiffs as they are not parties to the sale deed. Therefore, court fee is correctly computed.

7. Learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Shrirampur allowed the application at Exhibit 25. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) held that the valuation ought to be in accordance with Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. It held that Section 6(iv)(j) can be pressed into service only when monetary evaluation of the subject matter is not possible and where there is no other provision for the valuation of the subject matter in dispute. It further held that by Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1970, a new provision 6(iv)(ha) has been inserted and the court fee will have to be calculated in terms of Section 6(iv)(ha).

8 . Aggrieved by this decision, the Plaintiffs preferred Writ Petition before this Court. During the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court noticed that there are divergent views on this point. He found that in a case of Prism Reality vs. Mr. Govind Yashwant Khalade & Ors. in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 24111 of 2014 of this Court the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. - AIR 2010 SC 2807 was held by a Single Judge of this Court not applicable in view of specific provision in terms of Section 6(iv)(ha). He found that there are judgments of this Court in which reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) and held that Section 6(iv)(ha) will not be applicable but Section 6(iv)(j) will be applicable in cases where the Plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge formulated the above referred issued.

9 . Heard Mr. Subodh P. Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiff, Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr. R.N. Chavan, learned Counsel holding for Mr. V.A. Bagadia, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

10. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah, submitted that the Petitioners are not parties to the sale deed. He submitted that when the Plaintiff is a party to the sale deed, he has to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. When the Plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, he has to file a suit for declaration that the sale deed is void/non-est/invalid. The Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) held that when party to a suit