COMMON PIRU CAUDHARI Vs. BERUBAI CHENDU REDHIWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length. None appears for the respondents though served. Admit. Taken up for final hearing pursuant to the order dated 11th Jan. 2017.

(2.) On going through the impugned order and as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, learned Civil Judge, JD, Malegaon has committed a serious error of law in applying the provisions of Sec. 6 (iv) (ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act (for short, the "Act"). It may be noted that prayer clause (c) of the plaint seeks only a declaration that the sale deed dated 25.2013, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, is not binding on him. There are other clauses in the prayer which seek similar kind of declarations. The declarations sought in the prayer are only to the extent that various sale deeds specifically mentioned therein are not binding upon the applicant. None of the prayer clauses is seeking a declaration that all these sale deeds or any of them are/is null and void.

(3.) Sec. 6 (4) (ha) of the Act reads thus :