Allowed

Chandrakant Nivratti Batkulwar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Nov 2011WP/4556/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Trial Court order directing payment of Court fees on a pendente lite sale transaction. The Bench allowed the petition relying on precedent that court fees on lis pendens transfers need not be paid if the suit is for title declaration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Trial Court dated 12.1.2011 quashed; Writ Petition allowed; Rule made absolute.

Chandrakant Nivratti Batkulwar and Ors. Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 W.P.No.4556/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4556 OF 2011.

¶6

1. Chandrakant S/o Nivratti Batkulwar,
Age 49 years, Occ.Agri and Service,
R/o Degloor presently at Latur,
Dist. Latur.

¶7

2. Nivratti S/o Ramchandra Batkulwar,
Age 81 years, Occ.Business and Agri.,
R/o Degloor, Dist.Nanded.

¶8

3. Eknath S/o Nivratti Batkulwar,
Age 47 years, Occ.Agri and Business,
R/o Degloor, Dist.Nanded.

¶9

4. Tukaram S/o Nivratti Batkulwar,
Age 45 years, Occ.Agri and Business,
R/o Degloor, Dist.Nanded.

¶10

5. Namdeo S/o Nivratti Batkulwar,
Age 39 years, Occ.Agri and
Business, R/o Degloor,
Dist. Nanded. ... Petitioners.

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Nanded.

¶13

2. The Tahsildar Degloor,
Dist.Nanded.

¶14

3. The Talathi Saza, Degloor.

¶15

4. Dalchand S/o Ramhari Agrawal,

¶16

2 W.P.No.4556/11

¶17

Age major, Occ.Business,
R/o Gandinagar, Degloor,
At present Row House Last
Garden, Opp.Ajinkay City,
Ambajogai Road, Dist.Latur.

¶18

5. Rajkumar S/o Ramhari Agrawal,
Age major, Occ.Business,
R/o Gandhinagar, Degloor,
At present Raj Oil Industries
Marketyard, Basmat, Dist.
Hingoli.

¶19

6. Chimanseth S/o Ramhari Agrawal,
Age major, Occ.Business,
R/o Gandhinagar, Degloor,
Dist.Nanded.

¶20

7. Sheshikant S/o Narayan Chidrawar,
Age 54 years,Occ.Business and Agri.,
R/o Hotelbase Degloor, Dist.
Nanded.

¶21

8. Dr.Ravindra S/o Narayan
Chidrawar, Age 56 years, Occ.Medical
Practitioner, R/o Dr.Lane, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.

¶22

9. Girish S/o Kishanrao Chidrawar,
Age 42 years,Occ.Business and
Agri., R/o Talgalli, Degloor,
Dist.Nanded.

¶23

10. Kishan S/o Ramanna Chidrawar,
Age 63 years, Occ.Business and
Agri., R/o Talgalli, Degloor,
Dist.Nanded.

¶24

11. Dr.Sunil S/o Bubhashrao Balurkar
(Biradar), Age 33 years, Occ.Medical
Practitioner, R/o Sadhnagar,
Degloor, Dist.Nanded.

¶25

12. Dr. (Sow) Geeta W/o Sunil
Balurkar, Age 29 years, Occ.
Medical Practitioner, R/o
as above. ... Respondents.

¶26

3 W.P.No.4556/11

¶27

Mr.B.B.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for Respondent No.
7.

¶28

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶29

 Date : 11.11.2011.

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶31

1. Heard.

¶32

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶33

3.The petitioners are the original
plaintiffs who have filed a suit for declaration
of ownership and possession in respect of
agricultural land which is assessed to land
revenue. During pendency of the suit, the
defendants alienated the property by way of a
registered sale deed. The petitioners amended
the plaint and also challenged the said sale deed
executed pendente lite. Thereafter, the

¶34

4 W.P.No.4556/11

¶35

objection was raised by the defendants about the
payment of Court fees. The trial Court vide its
order dated 12.1.2011, allowed the objection and
directed the plaintiffs to pay Court fees on the
consideration of the sale transaction dated
3.7.2010 i.e. pendente lite sale transaction.
The said order is assailed in the present Writ
Petition.

¶36

4.Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that as the sale deed which
is sought to be challenged by way of amendment is
executed during pendency of the suit, the
petitioner is not required to pay Court fees on
the same and relies on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.
3569/2010, dated 22.9.2010, wherein this Court
held thus :

¶37

"8.Thus this discussion shows

¶38

that in a title suit valued
appropriatelyinitially,the

¶39

challenge to lis pendense transfer
is not essential. The party who

¶40

5 W.P.No.4556/11

¶41

indulges in such prohibited act can
not thereby require the aggrieved
party to alter the otherwise valid
valuation already made and pay more
Court fee due to such acts. Above
logic applied in relation to suits
for specific performance can also
very well be extended to title suits
of present nature where the decree
may show total absence of right in
defendant vendor to deal with the
immovable property. Moreover, here
in suit as filed originally there was
no prayer for possession as plaintiff
then claimed to be in possession.
However, in amended plaint he has
pleaded forcible dispossession on
14.7.2009 and has added a prayer for
decree for recovery thereof. He has
also claimed that Court fee for
relief of restoration of possession
on the basis of land revenue is
already paid. This is not found
incorrect or wrong by the Trial

¶42

6 W.P.No.4556/11

¶43

Court. It is apparent that in

¶44

present matter, there is no question
of plaintiffs paying any court fee
for that relief on sale consideration

¶45

paid by added defendant No.6 on
08.09.2009. Hence, even said
objectionofpetitionersis

¶46

misconceived."

¶47

5.Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for
the Respondent No.7 submits the said judgment of
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3569/2010, can
be distinguished on facts. In the said case,
this Court relied on the earlier judgment of this
Court in "Khanderao Bhujangrao Babar Vs.Bharatbai
Shrimant Gomsale reported in 2009 (3) ALL MR 568,
which was the suit for specific performance.
There the right was accrued in pursuant to the
agreement of sale and in the present case,the
right in favour of the plaintiffs is yet to be
accrued inasmuch the plaintiffs are seeking
declaration as to their title.

¶48

6.In W.P.No.3569/2010 i.e. the judgment

¶49

7 W.P.No.4556/11

¶50

relied by Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioners, the suit was for declaration of
title and possession. In the present case also
the suit is for declaration of title and
possession. It is a trite law that transactions
pendente lite need not be specifically challenged
and the transferee is bound by the decree. Be
that as it may, the said transfer pendente lite
is being assailed by the plaintiffs by way of an
amendment and has also challenged the sale deed.
This Court in W.P.No.3569/2010, decided on
22.9.2010, has specifically held that even if
such transfers are challenged, the Court fees is
not required to be paid on the sale consideration
of the said transaction.

¶51

7.In view of the same, the impugned order
can not be sustained.

¶52

8.In light of the above, the Writ
Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (B). However, there shall

¶53

8 W.P.No.4556/11

¶54

be no order as to costs.

¶55

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶56

asp/office/wp4556.11

Chandrakant Nivratti Batkulwar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Nivratti Batkulwar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopikabai Rameshwar Oza and Ors. Vs Lilawati Vijayrao Sutwane, Died. Thr. L.Rs. Sunil and Ors.

Nitin Vithal Chaudhari and Anr. Vs Deepak Vishwasrao Bhamre and Ors.

M/S Vijaysaree Centre Vs the Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund and Misc Provisions of Act Aurangabad

Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Nazir and Anr. Vs Saurabhi Milind Joshi and Anr.

Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Nazir and Anr. Vs Saurabhi Milind Joshi and Anr.

Manjulabai Aukdeo Auti Vs Dattatraya Mahadu Ware