cra2.23 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2023 Shehnaz Begum Akbarkhan and others VERSUS Khaleda Begum Gulam Ahmed Khan and others ... Advocate for the Applicants: Mr. Swapnil Joshi i/b M/s. J. P. Legal Associates ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 27th JULY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This revision is preferred against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna, rejecting application Exh.24, filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”), in Regular Civil Suit No. 369 of 2021, by an order dated 02.09.2022. 2. Mainly two grounds were raised by the applicants in their application Exh.24 that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the plaint is not properly valued and insufficient court fees have been paid. 3. Learned advocate for the applicants pointed out the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the plaint, in which they had pleaded that 2026:BHC-AUG:32170 cra2.23 -2- the alleged relinquishment deed was executed on 09.10.1997 but they came to know about it on 15.06.2021. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on 13.08.2021. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the said pleading is cleverly drafted to show that the suit is filed within a period of limitation. He pointed out the prayer clause and submitted that the plaintiffs have prayed for cancellation of the relinquishment deed and a declaration of their share in the property. Learned counsel for the applicants also pointed out the valuation done by the valuer and the sub- Registrar, Jalna, of the subject matter of the suit, i.e. Rs.79,99,323/- as per the ready reckoner. He pointed out that the impugned order is illegal and erroneous and prayed that the same be set aside. For that purpose, he is relying upon the following authorities. i) Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By L. Rs. LAWS (SC) 2019-3-94, in which in para 8 it is observed that:- “8. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court in the cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas Murthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.” cra2.23 -3- ii) Satish Talakchand Shah vs Hirji Bhojraj and Sons Kutchi Oswal Jain Chhatralay Trust and others, (2014) 1 ALL MR 345, in which it is held that rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act and that the plaint was undervalued, resulting in insufficient court fees and a lack of jurisdiction. iii) Sagar Narendra Gandhi and another v. Kishore s/o Wamanrao Pande and others, 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 1908, in which in para 8 it is observed that:- “8. This Court had perused the material on record. On a proper reading of the plaint, the prayers made therein, and the said sale deed would show that the prayers as they stand are not limited to grievance pertaining to clause No. (2) in the sale deed, and that evidently declaration and cancellation is sought in respect of the entire sale deed.” iv) Shabbir Ah. Ab. Raheem Hakeem and another vs. Sajeda w/o Abdul Hafiz and another, Writ petition No. 1372 of 2006 decided on 19.06.2007, in which in para 4 it is observed that:- “4. A perusal of the impugned orders show that the courts have completely overlooked the concept of market value found in the said Act of 1959. Section 8 of the said Act of 1959 contemplates an enquiry. It is the settled law that the rates mentioned in the ready reckoner prepared for the purposes of the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act by itself is no evidence of market value. The trial court has not at all recorded any cra2.23 -4- reasons for coming to the conclusion that the market value of the suit property was not less than Rs.8 lakhs. The appellate court has referred to the rates of market value mentioned in the ready reckoner. The petitioners have relied upon rates mentioned in the ready reckoner and especially the rate of Rs.1,000 per square meter for an open site. The appellate court observed that the skeleton of the construction was ready on the suit property and, therefore, the said rate cannot be applied.” v) N.V. Srinivasa Murthy vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed L.Rs. 2005 AIR (SC) 2897, in which in para 16 it is observed that:- “16. The High Court does not seem to be right in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any 'cause of action'. In our view, the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that accepting all averments in the plaint, the suit seems to be barred by limitation. On critical examination of the plaint as discussed by us above, the suit seems to be clearly barred on the facts stated in the plaint itself. The suit as framed is prima facie barred by the law of limitation, provisions of Specific Relief Act as also under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, nobody will dispute the ratio laid down in the above authorities. 5. On a perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it appears that they have pleaded that the relinquishment deed was executed on 09.10.1997, but they came to know of it only on 15.06.2021, when cra2.23 -5- they visited the office of the Revenue Officer. Thereafter, the suit was filed on 13.08.2021. Article 59 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years is prescribed for filing a suit seeking cancellation of an instrument, reckoned from the date of knowledge of the alleged deed sought to be cancelled. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law does not warrant interference. 6. As far as the incorrect valuation of the subject matter of the suit is concerned, Section 8 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, reads as under:- “8. Enquiry as to valuation of suits.— If the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued or if an application is made to the Court for the revision of any valuation made, the Court may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such enquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose.” 7. From the above, it appears that the valuation is to be determined after conducting an enquiry. For that purpose, the defendants have not filed a separate application for determination of the correct valuation. The provisions of Order VII Rule 11, cra2.23 -6- particularly clauses (b) and (c), provide that the Court has to determine the valuation of the suit property and direct the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and pay the requisite court fees within the prescribed period to be fixed by the Court. If such direction is not complied with, the plaint is liable to be rejected. In the present case, the ground raised in the application for rejection of the plaint is that the suit has been improperly valued by the plaintiffs. However, the valuation report based on the Ready Reckoner filed by the plaintiffs, cannot be the sole basis for determining the valuation of the suit property. The learned trial Court has not assigned any reason as to why the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs is correct or incorrect. The learned trial Court has held that the valuation of the plaintiffs' one- third share in the suit property is correct, which finding is unsustainable. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to determine the valuation of the suit property in accordance with law, if the defendants make an appropriate application seeking such determination. 8. Considering all these aspects, and as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna, has rightly decided the issue. No interference is warranted with the impugned order. There is no substance in the grounds raised in the Civil Revision Application. Accordingly, the Civil cra2.23 -7- Revision Application is dismissed. 9. However, it is clarified that if the defendants move an application seeking determination of the correct valuation of the suit property, the learned Trial Court shall determine the same and follow the procedure prescribed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. At this stage, the learned advocate for the applicants prays for a stay to the further hearing and proceedings of the suit pending before the trial court for a period of four weeks from today. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the further hearing and proceedings of the suit pending before the trial court are stayed for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/