The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Application challenging a Trial Court order that upheld the maintainability of a partition suit. The trial court correctly held that the suit was within limitation and within pecuniary jurisdiction because the petitioner valued the claim based on their share under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.149 OF 2017
Mark J. Gomes .… Applicant V/s. Eric D'Aguiar & Ors. …. Respondents
Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for the Applicant.
Mr. Clive D'Souza for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 2 ND APRIL 2018.
P.C. :
1/3
CRA-149-17.doc
was, 'whether the Trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Suit?'.
2/3
CRA-149-17.doc
Fees Act clearly provide that, when it is a Suit for partition and separate possession of a share in the joint family property, then, the Plaintiff has to value the claim on the value of his share in the joint family property. Thus, the valuation has to be made on the share of Respondent No.1 in the suit property and accordingly he has valued the suit claim on the amount of Rs.83,67,565/-. It is not shown that the notional valuation of the share of Respondent No.1 in the suit property is beyond or more than that. In such situation, the Trial Court has rightly held that, as the Suit pertains to the partition and Respondent No.1 has valued the suit claim on the basis of his share, both the objections raised to the maintainability of the Suit are rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned Judgment and Order of the Trial Court.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
3/3
CRA-149-17.doc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order upholding the petition's maintainability against objections of limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction.
Whether a suit for partition is maintainable in the City Civil Court when the plaintiff values the claim based only on their specific share in the joint family property.
Whether the valuation for court fees in a partition suit should be based on the total property value or the individual plaintiff's share.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mark J. Gomes
Eric D'Aguiar & Ors.
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
