Sonali Mane 39-WP-3034-2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3034 OF 2016 Mr. Sadanand Sitaram Mhatre And Ors. … Petitioners Versus State Of Maharashtra, Through Ministry Of Revenue And Ors. … Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Gharat a/w Mr. Sarvesh Gharat and Ms. Nidhi Mankar for Petitioners. Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent-State. [ Mr. Sandip D. Shinde, for Respondent No.8. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The challenge in the Petition is to the Order dated 2 September 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, directing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to deposit Court fees in view of objection raised by the Registry. The suit, inter alia, challenges registered Development Agreement dated 20 August 2008 and registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21 August 2008. The Plaintiffs are admittedly non-signatories to either of the documents. They essentially seek a declaration that both the ___Page No. 1 of 3 ___ 16 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.18 10:49:07 +0530 Sonali Mane 39-WP-3034-2016.docx documents do not bind the Plaintiffs. However, it appears that prayer clause (c) in the plaint also seeks a declaration that the registered Development Agreement and the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney are null and void. 2) Mr. Gharat, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, on instructions, submits that prayer clause (c) shall be restricted only to seeking a declaration that the registered Development Agreement and the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney would not be binding on the share of the Plaintiffs. The law with regard to payment of Court fees on an instrument for sale to which the Plaintiffs are not signatories is now well settled by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dilip Khushalchand Jain and Ors. Vs. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani and Ors . ,1. It is held by this Court that if a declaration is sought that the sale deed is void qua the whole world, Court fees under Section6(iv)(ha)of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 needs to be paid. However, where a declaration is sought that sale deed is not binding on the share of the Plaintiffs, valuation of the suit can be under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. 3) In the present case, the Plaintiffs want to restrict their challenge only to a declaration that the Development Agreement and the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney would not be binding on the share of the Plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to pay Court fees on the suit under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The Impugned Order dated 2 September 2013 is 1 Writ Petition No. 8968 of 2018, decided by this Court, Bench at Aurangabad on 5 May 2022 ___Page No. 2 of 3 ___ 16 September 2026 Sonali Mane 39-WP-3034-2016.docx accordingly set aside. The Plaintiffs shall carry out a formal amendment in prayer clause 26(c) of the suit by deleting the words "null and void-ab-intio". 4) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 3 of 3 ___ 16 September 2026