DIAMOND DEVELOPERS Vs. KRISHNA SITARAM J. SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) By this Civil Revision Application, the Applicant is challenging the order dated 11th April, 2016 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, on the application below Exh.51 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 2065 of 2012. The said application was filed by the present Applicant, who is original Defendant No.4, in the trial Court, under Order-7 Rule-11 of the Civil Procedure Code, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, the valuation of the suit claim made by Respondent No.1- Original Plaintiff is not proper.

(3.) The said suit was filed by Respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties. Respondent No.2 is his brother and Respondent No.3 is their sister. During pendency of the suit, by way of amendment of the plaint, Respondent No.4 and present Applicant are impleaded in the suit as Defendant Nos.3 and 4, respectively, and the Sale-Deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Respondent No.3 on 21st May 2010 and the Sale-Deed executed by Respondent No.4 in favour of the Applicant on 22nd June 2010 came to be challenged, seeking a declaration that the said Sale- Deeds are not binding on the share of the Plaintiff. According to the Applicant, however, the Plaintiff has not properly valued the suit claim for the relief of declaration. Though the amended suit claim for declaration was required to be valued as per Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, (for short "the Act"), Respondent No.1 has valued the same under Section 6(iv) (j) of the Act. It was, thus, contended that, the valuation of the suit claim should have been on the consideration amount mentioned in the Sale-Deeds, as the declaration is sought for avoidance of the said Sale-Deeds for the purpose of granting the relief of partition and separate possession, as claimed by Respondent No.1. As Respondent No.1 has not done so, it was submitted that, the plaint is liable to be rejected on that count.