Balkrishna Hari Meshram vs Dilip Balkrishna Meshram & Anr.

Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Bhishikar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant takes exception to the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mohadi, District – Bhandara, by which, the application Exhibit 21 in Regular Civil Suit No.26/2020, came to be rejected. The said application Exhibit 21 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint.

The original applicant Balkrishna Hari Meshram is the defendant against whom non-applicant No.1/ plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.26/2020 for declaration that the gift deed in favour of defendant (Sanskar Sudesh Meshram) dated 19.10.2020 bearing registration No.1509/2020, be declared as null and void, and same is not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs.1000/- and paid the Court fee of Rs.200/-.

The applicant, therefore, had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division. In the said application, the applicant has raised the grounds that the suit is not within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court and non-payment of court fees. The applicant/ defendant stated that the respondent/ plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and prayed for cancellation of the gift deed dated 19.10.2020. The said gift deed is executed by Shri Balkrishna Hari Meshram in favour of defendant (Sanskar Sudesh Meshram). According to the applicant/defendant, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit because the plaintiffs have prayed for cancellation of the gift deed. The applicant/ defendant No.1 gifted the suit property to the defendant (Sanskar Sudesh Meshram) for market value of Rs.25,57,000/-. Since the respondents/ plaintiffs are seeking declaration and permanent injunction and cancellation of the gift deed, therefore, they are liable to pay proper court fees on the market value of Rs.25,57,000/-. As the valuation is increased, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The applicant further submits that all the parties are not joined by the plaintiff and therefore, he prayed for rejection of the plaint.

The said application was replied by the respondents/ plaintiffs by filing their reply. The learned Civil Judge Junior Division, while passing the impugned order dated 22.09.2022, observed that the provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) and Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, will be applicable to the suit and as per Section 6(iv)(ha), in a suit for declaration that any sale or contract is void one half of the ad valorem fee leviable on the value of the property would be payable. However, as per Section 6(iv)(j) in suits where declaration is sought and the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation then ad valorem fee payable as if the amount or value of subject matter was Rs.1,000/-. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, as the plaintiff has specifically stated that the gift deed dated 19.10.2020 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and void ab-initio and not binding upon him, therefore, as the plaintiff was not executant in the said gift deed, therefore, the valuation carried out by the plaintiff is proper. Accordingly, the application came to be rejected.

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has committed error in considering the fact that the gift deed dated 19.10.2020 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Since the market valuation of the said gift deed is above Rs.25 Lakhs, the plaintiff claiming cancellation of the said gift deed is very much susceptible to the monetary evaluation. When the contract is susceptible to the monetary evaluation, the parties seeking to challenge the said contract are required to pay appropriate court fees on the valuation of the property. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, has committed an error in passing the impugned order. He further submits that the valuation of the property is Rs.25,57,000/- and therefore, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, has also no jurisdiction to try the suit.

Per contra, Mr. Bhisikar, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff opposed the application and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division is correct and proper and requires no interference. He submitted that since the plaintiff is not executant in the gift deed, therefore, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, he is not liable to pay the court fee on the basis of the market value of the property. Since he is non-executant, the monetary evaluation of the property is not susceptible and therefore, the court fee of Rs.200/- on the basis of valuation of Rs.1,000/- came to be paid, which is correct and proper in pursuance to the various judgments delivered by this Hon’ble Court.

After going through the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. The relevant provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) and Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court-fees Act, 1959, read as under:-

Thus, Section 6(iv)(ha) applies to a suit seeking declaration that a sale, contract for sale or termination of contract for sale is void, whereas Section 6(iv)(j) is attracted where a declaration is sought, with or without consequential relief, and the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and is not otherwise covered by the Act.

In Vasant Kisan Idhol Vs. Smt. Manjurabai Kisanrao Idhol, reported in 2017 (5) ALL MR 158, this Court was considering a similar question relating to valuation of a suit in which the plaintiff had sought a declaration that the Gift-Deed was null and void. The defendant therein had contended that the suit was liable to be valued on the basis of the market value of the immovable property. This Court, after considering the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) and Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, held that while determining the proper valuation, what is required to be considered is the “subject matter in dispute”. It was held that, in the facts of that case, the subject matter in dispute was the alleged fraudulent execution of the Gift-Deed and not the immovable property itself. The Court further held that where the declaration sought relates to the validity of the Gift-Deed and the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation, the suit is properly valued under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. The Court accordingly held that the valuation of the suit was proper and that there was no jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court.

In the present case, though the respondent/plaintiff is not an executant nor party to the Gift-Deed dated 19.10.2020, however, he seeks declaration that the same is null and void and not binding upon him. He is not seeking cancellation of any instrument executed by him. Thus, the controversy relates to the validity and binding nature of the Gift-Deed and not to the monetary value of the suit property. Applying the ratio in Vasant Kisan Idhol (supra), the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and, therefore, Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 is applicable.

It would be useful to refer to the judgment dated 05.05.2022 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.8968/2018 (Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain and others vs. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani and others), which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in this matter. In fact, the Division Bench was constituted since the matter was referred to the Larger Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for deciding the following issue :-

While deciding the aforesaid issue in the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in paragraph Nos.23, 24 and 26 observed as under :-

In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff is not an executant or party to the Gift-Deed dated 19.10.2020 and seeks a declaration that the same is null and void and not binding upon him. He is not seeking cancellation of any instrument executed by him. Thus, the controversy relates to the validity and binding nature of the Gift-Deed and not to the monetary value of the suit property. Applying the ratio in Vasant Kisan Idhol (supra), the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and, therefore, Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 is applicable.

The submission that the market value of the suit property is Rs.25,57,000/- and, therefore, ad valorem court fee is payable, cannot be accepted. The market value of the property mentioned in the Gift-Deed, by itself, would not determine the valuation when the plaintiff is seeking a declaration regarding an instrument to which he is not a party. Once the valuation under Section 6(iv)(j) is held to be proper, the contention regarding want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, also cannot be accepted. The pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be determined on the basis of the market value of the property when such value is not the basis for valuation of the relief claimed. As regards non-joinder of necessary parties, the same by itself is not a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such objection is governed by the provisions of Order I of the Code and, therefore, the said contention does not warrant interference with the impugned order.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by this Court in Vasant Kisan Idhol (supra) and Dilip Khushalchand Jain (supra), no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court is demonstrated, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed.