Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Chetan Krishna Shetty – Appellant
Versus
Seema Chetan Shetty – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6650 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2022
Court Fee - Gift Deed - Sec. 6(iv)(j), Maharashtra Court Fees Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec. 6(iv)(j), Maharashtra Court Fees Act - The court discussed the valuation of court fees for a suit challenging gift deeds. The plaintiff sought a declaration and injunction for two gift deeds without seeking cancellation. The court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision and directed the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee based on the value of the properties mentioned in the gift deeds. The court also considered the nature of relief claimed and the subject matter in dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Suit alleging fraudulent transfer of two flats gifted to him by his parents. The defendants sought rejection of the Suit on the ground of maintainability, lack of cause of action, and deliberate undervaluation of the plaint. The City Civil Court rejected the motion but directed the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee in relation to the claim for both the gift deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's suit lacked cause of action and maintainability but directed the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee for the gift deeds challenged in the Suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the valuation of court fees for a suit challenging gift deeds, the nature of relief claimed, and the subject matter in dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Delhi High Court's ruling, which emphasized the valuation of court fees based on the value of the properties mentioned in the gift deeds and the nature of relief claimed by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the City Civil Court and declared that the plaintiff had rightly valued the Suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction under Sec. 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act at Rs.1,000.00.
Key Points: - The court held that the suit for declaration and injunction challenging gift deeds is valued and charged under Sec. 6(iv)(j) at Rs. 1,000.00 (!) . - The decision hinges on the doctrine that where the relief is declaratory and the subject matter is not susceptible to monetary valuation, Sec. 6(iv)(j) applies rather than 6(iv)(ha) or ad valorem under other subsections (!) (!) (!) . - The Delhi High Court’s reasoning in related cases was considered persuasive in directing deficit court fee based on the value of the properties in the gift deeds and the nature of relief claimed (!) (!) . - The City Civil Court’s earlier order directing deficit fee under 6(iv)(ha) was held to be illegal; the petition was allowed and the writ granted to set aside those orders (!) . - The judgment references and relies on multiple authorities explaining 6(iv)(d), 6(iv)(ha), and 6(iv)(j) and the concept of "subject matter in dispute" for determining court fees (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner who is the original plaintiff to the Suit is aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai on a Notice of Motion seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, pursuant to which a direction came to be issued to the plaintiff to pay deficit Court fee in relation to the claim for both the gift deeds under challenge, failing which it was directed that the plaint shall be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, he filed a Review Petition which is also rejected on 30/8/2021.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel Shri Rajesh Patil for the petitioner and Advocate Dr.Uday Warunjikar for respondent no.1 and Advocate Hemal Ganatra for respondent nos.2 to 4. In the longish facts involved, it would be sufficient to state that the plaintiff was married to defendant no.1. and defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 are the relatives of defendant no.1. The dispute resulting in institution of a Suit by the plaintiff revolve around the troubled relationship, when it is alleged by the plaintiff that he had purchased two flats in Mumbai Suburban, out of which the subject flat was gifted to him by his parents vide gift deed dtd. 9/4/2008. The plaintiff alleged that this flat came to be fraudulently transferred in favour of defendant no.1, with the active participation of defendant nos.2 to 4 and by hatching a conspiracy, the plaintiff was ousted from the suit flat. He, therefore, filed a Suit for declaration and injunction with a relief of being put back in possession and he sought a declaration that the action of defendant no.1 in connivance of defendant nos.2 to 4 of not allowing the plaintiff to enter and stay in the suit premises is bad-in-law. The suit premises covered two flats with the description set out in the plaint. The plaint in the suit, sought several reliefs but the substantive relief prayed was to the following effect :-
(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the documents executed are perpetrated by fraud, coercion and the same is illegal and the same be declared as illegal and bad in law, null and void, namely:
(i) Gift Deed dtd. 16/3/2017 between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 in respect of suit property being Flat No.502, 5th floor, Sai Suman CHS Ltd, 'A' Wing, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai 400083, and
(ii) Gift Deed dtd. 5/12/2018 between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 in respect of suit property being Shri Sai CHS Ltd, Bldg No.36, Room No.1162, Tagore Nagar, Vikholi (E), Mumbai400083.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Possession of Defendants of the suit property is bad in law, namely:
(i)Flat No.502, 5th floor, Sai Suman CHS Ltd 'A' Wing,Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400 083, and
(ii) Shri Sai CHS Ltd, Bldg No.36, Room No.1162, Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai 400083. A permanent mandatory injunction/order of injunction restraining the defendants from dispossession the plaintiff from the suit property as well as the relief of temporary injunction was also sought. In para-36 of the plaint, the plaintiff made the following declaration and paid the Court fee as per Sec. 6(iv)
(j) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and the said part read as under :- "The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff is claiming seeking declaration and injunctions which are non-susceptible to monetary valuation and therefore, the Plaintiff values the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction under Sec. 6(iv)(j) of Maharashtra Stamp Act at Rs.1,000.00 and pays the Court fees of Rs.......... accordingly'.
3. The defendants in the Suit took out a Notice of Motion No.1937 of 2020 for the following relief :
"(a) That this Court with all powers under Order 7 Rule 11 be pleased to dismiss the Suit on the ground of maintainability, lack of cause of action and deliberate under valuation of the plaint" The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion pleaded that Suit was a counter blast to the divorce proceedings and therefo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fees for a suit challenging gift deeds based on the value of the properties mentioned in the gift deeds and the nature o....
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
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 Plai....
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
A declaration of voidness suffices in court fee assessments if the plaintiff is not an executant of the deed, negating the need for cancellation or payment based on market value.
In suits for cancellation of documents, court fees are to be computed based on the value mentioned in the document, not the market value, as established by the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuatio....
A suit which has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid, can rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
