Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Jaya Arjun Mhatre And Ors. vs Shri. Mahendra Popatlal Shah Thr. Poa. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5742 Bom

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5742 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2025

Bombay High Court

Smt. Jaya Arjun Mhatre And Ors. vs Shri. Mahendra Popatlal Shah Thr. Poa. ... on 17 September, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:38953
             Neeta Sawant                                                           30-CRA-420-2018.docx

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2018


             Jaya Arjun Mhatre and others                                            .....Applicants
                        : Versus :
             Mahendra Popatlal Shah and others                                       ....Respondents


             Mr. Mayank Tripathi i/b Ms. Preeti Walimbe, for the Applicant.




                                                         CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                                         DATED :     17 SEPTEMBER 2025.
             P.C :

             1)                The Revision Application challenges order dated 7 March 2018

passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kalyan rejecting Applicant's application at Exhibits-27 and 47 seeking rejection of plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

2) I have heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant who submits that in prayer clause (b) of the plaint, Plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the Development Agreement dated 17 May 2017 executed between Defendant Nos.1 to 9 and Defendant Nos.10 to 14 is not binding on the Plaintiffs. He would therefore submit that the suit is filed for avoidance of the Development Agreement dated 17 May 2017 and that therefore the suit needs to be valued under the provisions of Section 6(iv) (ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Court Fees Act). In support, he would rely upon judgments of this Court in Abdulsattar Gulabbhai Bagwan

_____________________________________________________________________________

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

Neeta Sawant 30-CRA-420-2018.docx

Versus. Vaibhav Laxmangiri Gosawi and others 1 and Sanjay Ramchandra Shendkar and others Versus. Narayan Antu Zendge and others 2.

3) I have considered the submissions canvassed by Mr. Tripathi. The Suit is filed by the Plaintiff essentially seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property alongwith Defendant Nos.15 to 18. It appears that since the Development Agreement dated 17 May 2017 is executed by the Defendant Nos.1 to 9 (who claim title in the suit property) in favour of the Defendant Nos.10 to 14, prayer clause (b) is incorporated in the suit as under :-

b. Declare that the Development Agreement dated 17/05/2017 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Kalyan-5 at serial no. 5305 made and entered between the Defendant nos. 1 to 9 and Defendant nos. 10 to 14 is not binding on the Plaintiff and the Defendant nos. 15 to 18.

4) Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Court Fees Act provides thus :-

(ha) for avoidance of sale, contract for sale, etc.- In suits for declaration that any sale, or contract for sale or termination of contract for sale, of any movable or immovable property is void one-

half of ad valorem fee leviable on the value of the property;

5) Thus, Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Court Fees Act is attracted only when the suit is filed for a declaration that in a sale or a contract for sale or for termination of contract of sale relating to movable or immovable property is void. In the present case, there is no Sale Deed in respect of the suit property. What is sought to be challenged is the Development Agreement and not conveyance or Sale-Deed. Both the judgments Abdulsattar Gulabbhai Bagwan (supra) and Sanjay Ramchandra Shendkar (supra) deal with avoidance of transaction of sale. Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Court Fees Act does not cover

1 2012(2) Mh.L.J. 285 2 2022(4) Mh.L.J. 130

_____________________________________________________________________________

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

Neeta Sawant 30-CRA-420-2018.docx

the situation where avoidance of Development Agreement is sought in a Suit. For the purposes of Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Court Fees Act, sale/conveyance cannot be equated with Development Agreement. In my view, therefore the Trial Court has rightly rejected Applicant's application for rejection of plaint. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

_____________________________________________________________________________

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter