Section 27 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) provides for concessional court fees in disputes pertaining to trust property, where the dispute is between inter-se trustees or between the Trustee and third party arising on account of such dispute. The benefit of concessional court fees under Section 27 is available even if the trustee who made the initial transaction is no longer a defendant.

1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.11.2012 of learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Udaipur, in a suit filed by idol of Shri Keshariya Nath Bhagwan, in respect of disputed shop, which according to plaintiffs/ petitioners, was initially mortgaged by one Sh. Ratan Chand ('Yati') Chela Sh. Guru Ramlal in 'Vikram Samvat' year 1958 on '??? ?? ???' for Rs. 351/- to one Sh. Nandlal S/o Chaturbhuj Joshi, the predecessor in title of present defendants No.2 to 5, seeking declaration in the suit that the sale-deed executed by the defendants No. 2, 3 and 5, namely, Manehdra Nath Purohit S/o Ajay Nath Purohit and others, in favour of defendant No.1, namely, Niranjan Lal Sahu S/o Kishan Lal Sahu, be declared illegal and void since the aforesaid 'Yati' (Sh. Ratan Chand) in the capacity of trustee of the idol, could not mortgage the said property, which in the course of time, was claimed to be a joint family property of the private defendants No.2 to 5, and upon a partition suit filed in respect of said suit property also, the shop in question, situated at Mandi, Udaipur, came to be sold by the defendants No. 2 to 5 in favour of defendant No.1.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs (Trust), claimed that the court fees in respect of suit shop filed by them vide para 16 of the plaint, would be ⅕th of the market value of the suit property in question, which according to the plaint, was fixed at Rs. 21 lacs and ⅕th thereof will Rs. 4,20,000/-, the plaintiffs, however, paid the fixed court fees of Rs. 200/- as stipulated in Section 27 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1961') along with Rs. 400/- court fees for injunction against the defendants.

3. The learned trial court has, however, vide the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 held that Section 27 of the Act of 1961 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since none of the defendants shown in the plaint, is admittedly a trustee of the Trust and, therefore, Section 27 of the Act of 1961 would not be applicable and hence, the plaintiff-Trust has to pay full court fees at the market value of suit shop of Rs. 21 lacs.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.11.2012, the plaintiffs/petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust submitted that as per Section 27 of the Act of 1961 in case of any dispute between the trustees or the rival claimants to the office of Trust or between the trustees and persons, who have ceased to be trustees, court fees shall computed on ⅕th of the market-value of the property, subject to a maximum even to Rs. 200/-. He further drew the attention of the Court towards Explanation of the said Section 27 of the Act of 1961 and submitted that in case of Hindu, Muslim or other religious or charitable endowments, it shall be deemed to be trust property and the manager of any such property shall also be deemed to be the trustee thereof. He, therefore, submitted that even for arguments sake, the said Yati, Ratan Chand, was only manager of the said trust, he will be deemed to be trustee, since the very initial transaction of mortgage made by him in 'Vikram Samvat' year 1958 is under challenge, the subsequent transactions assuming the property to be of joint family property of predecessor of defendants No. 2 to 5, such a dispute will fall within the four corners of Section 27 of the Act of 1961 and, hence, the court fees was rightly paid by the plaintiff-Trust as per the value fixed by them at ⅕th of the market value, subject to maximum of Rs. 200/- and, therefore, the learned trial court without taking any evidence deciding the preliminary issue in this respect, has erred in directing the plaintiffs/petitioners to pay the full court fees on the