30-WP-7431-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7431 OF 2019 Narayan Baburao Pawar. …Petitioner Vs. Maruti Baburao Pawar and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar a/w. Ms. Pallabi Chatterjee, Mr. Ohm Gandhi for the petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Adkine h/f. Ms. Prachi Tatake for respondent no.13. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY 2026 ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the order passed by the trial court directing the plaintiff to value the suit as per Section 6 (iv) (ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The suit is filed for a declaration that the sale deed executed by deceased Sahadu is false and illegal. The plaintiff is claiming through deceased Babu. The sale deed was executed by the deceased Mahadu and Sahadu, who were brothers of Babu. The defendants are from the branch of Mahadu and Sahadu. The plaintiff has also prayed for partition and separate possession. 1/5 Swapnil 30-WP-7431-2019.docx 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a prayer for partition and separate possession and the valuation is made as per the plaintiff’s 2/5th share, the plaintiff cannot be held liable to value the suit under clause (ha) for the prayer for declaration. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 13, who claims through the branch of deceased Mahadu and Sahadu, submits that the prayer in the suit is for declaration that the entire sale deed be declared as false and illegal. Hence, the plaintiff would be liable to value the suit and pay the court fees as per Section 6 (iv) (ha) of the Court Fees Act. He, therefore, submits that the prayer is not restricted to the plaintiff’s share. Hence, in view of prayer clause ‘a’, the suit is rightly held to be valued as per Section 6 (iv) (ha). 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.13 relies upon the decision of this court in Diamond Developers Office Through It’s Partner Dineshbhai Premjibhai Patel Vs. Krishna Sitaram J. Shetty and Ors1. He submits that this position is clarified in the said decision in paragraph 25. He, therefore, submits that there is a prayer for declaration in respect of the entire sale deed, which has the effect of 1 2017 SCC ONLine Bom 9801 2/5 30-WP-7431-2019.docx cancellation of the entire sale deed, and not restricted to the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the valuation has to be done as per Section 6 (iv) (ha). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the observations in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said decision to support his submission that since the prayer for partition and separate possession and for the share of the plaintiff is already valued and the court fees is paid, the plaintiff cannot be held liable to pay the court fees and value the suit as per Section 6 (iv) (ha) of the Court Fees Act. 6. I have perused the papers of the petition and the aforesaid decision. A perusal of the plaint shows that the substantive prayer is for a declaration that the sale deed is false, invalid and illegal, and there is a prayer for partition and separate possession of 2/5th share. Since the prayer is for declaration in respect of the entire sale deed and not restricted to the undivided share of the plaintiff, the valuation made as per Section 6 (vii) of Court Fees Act would not inure to the benefit of the plaintiff to contend that the suit is not required to be valued for the substantive prayer clause ‘a’ which seeks declaration in respect of the entire sale deed. 3/5 30-WP-7431-2019.docx The effect of prayer clause ‘a’ would have the effect of cancellation of the entire sale deed, not restricted to the undivided share of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit will have to be valued as per Section 6 (iv) (ha) of the Court Fees Act. 7. The observation of this court in paragraph 25 of the aforesaid decision clarifies that when the substantial relief is for partition and separate possession and the prayer for declaration is an incidental relief in respect of the sale deed executed by another co-owner in favour of the third party, the value of the claim for a declaration under Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Court Fees Act would applicable. However, in the present case, the prayer for declaration is not restricted to the plaintiff’s undivided share. Hence, the plaintiff cannot rely upon Section 6 (iv) (j), which is applicable to other declarations. 8. Therefore, in view of the substantial prayer clause ‘a’ for declaration of the entire sale deed, the valuation made as per Section 6 (vii) of the Court Fees Act would not apply to the substantive prayer of declaration and the plaintiff must value the suit under Section 6 (iv) (ha). Hence, the impugned order directing the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 6 4/5 30-WP-7431-2019.docx (iv) (ha) of the Court Fees Act would not warrant any interference in this writ petition in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned order. 9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 10. It is clarified that in the event the plaintiff seeks any prayer for the amendment of the plaint to amend the prayer clause ‘a’ to restrict it to the extent of the plaintiff’s undivided share, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek modification of the impugned order for restricting the valuation as per the amended prayer. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by keeping in mind the legal principles settled in the decision of this court in Diamon Developers. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 5/5