(1.) The short point arising in this civil revision application is the adequacy of the court fees paid on the plaint of the suit instituted by the opponent No 1.
(2.) The petitioners were defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit instituted by opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 1 the plaintiff was a creditor of defendant No. 6 who is opponent No. 2 in this civil revision application. I will refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants as the case may be. Defendant No. 6 while he was still a debtor of the plaintiff passed a gift deed of the suit property in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 (the petitioners) on 13-1-1963. The suit has to avoid that gift deed. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the said gift deed made by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 be declared fraudulent as having been made with intent to defeat his creditors. The plaintiff also prayed that the said gift deed be set aside.
(3.) The plaint was stamped with a fixed court fee of Rs. 30/on the footing that the suit fell under sec. 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 contended that the suit fell under sec. 6(iv)(d) of the Act and that court fee payable was on an ad valorem basis to be calculated on the market value of the property covered by the gift deed. The lower Court upheld the plaintiffs valuation and held that the suit fell under sec. 6(iv)( j) of the Act. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have come in revision.