Saturam Narayan Dalvi v. Sanjiv Baban Dalvi

Bombay HC6 Apr 2026WP/3810/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition disposed; Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC; rejection of plaint; court fee on market value of property under sale deed; power of attorney executant question left to trial; valuation and court fee issues kept open; objection via written statement to be framed as issues at trial; relies on Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain v. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani, 2023(3) ABR 672 (Division Bench); suit RCS No.8 of 2024; sale deed dated 4 October 2023; power of attorney dated 8 November 2011.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition stands disposed with the issues of proper valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees kept open for adjudication at trial. ¶¶18

Saturam Narayan Dalvi vs Sanjiv Baban Dalvi — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition stands disposed with the issues of proper valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees kept open for adjudication at trial.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Civil Judge rightly rejected the Petitioners' application for rejection of the plaint in RCS No.8 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench judgment in Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain v. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani, the Plaintiff, not being a party to the sale deed dated 4 October 2023, is not required to pay court fee on the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the sale deed.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Keeping open the issues of proper valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees to be paid thereon, the Writ Petition stands disposed.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Whether the Plaintiff, having executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.1, on the strength of which the Sale Deed has been executed, can be construed to be the executant of the said sale deed, is a matter which warrants adjudication at the trial.obiter¶¶17
If an objection is raised in the written statement as to the correct valuation of the suit claim and the proper court fees thereon, the trial Court may frame appropriate issues and determine those issues along with the other issues that may arise for adjudication in the suit.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.; decision dated 6 April 2026) disposed of Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2026, which challenged the Civil Judge's order dated 24 December 2025 rejecting the Petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint in RCS No.8 of 2024. The underlying suit by Respondent–Plaintiff Sanjiv Baban Dalvi seeks declaration that the sale deed dated 4 October 2023 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is sham, null and void, and cancellation of the Power of Attorney dated 8 November 2011 executed in favour of Defendant No.1. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain v. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani, 2023(3) ABR 672, the Court held that a Plaintiff who is not a party to the sale deed is not required to pay court fee on the market value of the property; however, whether the Plaintiff who executed the Power of Attorney can be treated as the executant of the sale deed was expressly left for adjudication at trial. Issues of proper valuation and court fees were kept open, with direction that any objection on valuation/court fees raised in the written statement may be framed as issues and determined by the trial Court.

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:16754

¶2

26 wp 3810 of 2026.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3810 OF 2026

¶4

Saturam Narayan Dalvi and Anr. versus

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Sanjiv Baban Dalvi … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sagar Talekar, for Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 6 APRIL 2026

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶11

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 24 December 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioners for rejection of the plaint in RCS No.8 of 2024 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected.

¶12

The Respondent – Plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 on 4 October 2023 is sham, null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. A declaration was also sought that the Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 on 8 November 2011 be cancelled and delivered-up.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, since the sale deed dated 4 October 2023 was executed on the strength of the Power of Attorney

¶14

SSP 1/2

¶15

26 wp 3810 of 2026.doc

¶16

executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 on 8 November 2011, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to pay the court fees on the valuation of the property as shown in the sale deed.

¶17

Since the Plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed dated 4 October 2023, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain V/s. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani¹ , the Plaintiff is not required to pay the court fee on the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the sale deed. However, the question as to whether, the Plaintiff, having executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.1, on the strength of the which the Sale Deed has been executed, can be construed to be the executant of the said sale deed, is a matter which warrants adjudication at the trial.

¶18

Therefore, keeping open the issues of proper valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees to be paid thereon, the Writ Petition stands disposed.

¶19

If an objection is raised in the written statement as to the correct valuation of the suit claim and the proper court fees thereon, the trial Court may frame appropriate issues and determine those issues along with the other issues that may arise for adjudication in the suit.

¶20

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶21

1 2023(3) ABR 672

¶22

SSP 2/2

¶23

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/04/2026 17:50:47

Saturam Narayan Dalvi v. Sanjiv Baban Dalvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saturam Narayan Dalvi v. Sanjiv Baban Dalvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumeet Lalitkumar Bhatia vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajiv Gulabchand Pandey vs Mrs. Mary George and Another

Aaditya Pearl Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Prashant Digambar Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Narayan Tejpal Podar Since Decd.His Legal Heirs vs Ramprakash Juggilal Podar Since Decd Thr Legal Heirs

Gomiben Radkabhai Varli Alias Dhediya and Ors. vs the Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Daman and Ors.