MADHAORAO & OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 29-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

G04 
MADHAORAO & OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
January 29, 1971 
(K. S. HEGDB AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Bombay Court Fees Act; 1959-Section 6(i) (v) and Cls. (a), (b) 
and (c)-Basis of ct:li:u/ation of court fee where subject matter is land. 
Jn a suit for possession of land court fee was held to be payable, under 
s. 6(1) (v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, on the value of the land. 
A 
On appeal, 
c 
HELD : Under section 6(i) (v) in a suit for possession of land the 
· coart fee has to be calculated according to what has been provided in sub· 
clauses. (a) (b) and (c) with regard to different categories of land. It 
may be that in cl. ( v) the land which has not been assessed to land revenue 
is not covered by clause (aJ, (b) and (c) but then the court fee will have 
to be calculated under some other provision of the Act but not on the 
basis of the value of the land. [606 Al 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1728 Of 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and. order dated 
February 23, J.967 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in 
Civil Revision No. 32 of 1965. 
E 
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants. 
'' 
M. C. Bhandare and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The fodgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave from a judg-
F 
ment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The appel-
luts had filed a suit for claiming proprietary rights in a property 
which was known as "Navegaon tank" and which consisted of 
several khasras with a total. acreage of 3104 odd. These vil!ages 
were Malguz!ui. villages. 
By virtue of the provisions of the 
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, 
G . 
Alienated Lands), Act, 1950 the malguzari of this tank were 
deprived of their rights and the Government took over possession. 
The compensation was paid by the Government after holding 
enquiry provided by the Act. 
The appellants, however, claim· 
ed a declaration that they still continued to be owners as before 
and wanted .a permanent injunction restraining the Government 
H 
from interfering with their rights. 
Alternatively it was prayed 
that if the Government was found to be in posses~ion then a decree 
for possession be granted in their favour. 
-.·~. 
' 
·.! 
A 
MADHAORAO v. MAHARASHTRA (Grover, /.) 
605 
The Court Fee which was paid by the appellants was cal-
culated on the foliowing basis. 
It was alleged that compensa-
tion of Rs. 1126/- only had been paid to the proprietors and 
therefore the tank had to be valued on the basis of that figure 
for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. In addition owing-
to the injunction claimed an additional court fee of Rs. 50/-
B · was paid. 
On behalf of the State an objection was raised in 
the· trial court that the value of the tank would not be less than 
Rs. 10,00,000/- and court fee on that amount should have been 
paid. 
The trial_ court came to the conclusion that the sUit was 
for possession of land on the evidence which was produced it 
was held that the value of the land was Rs. 25,00,000/-. The 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
appellants were directed 1~0 pay court f~ ori that amount and 
make appropriate amendments in the plain:t. 
The appellants approached the High Court on the revisional 
side and challenged the decision of the trial court on the question 
of court fee. The High Court referred to s. 6(i) (v) of the Dom 
bay Court Fees Act, 1959, which was in force at the material 
time. This provision may be reproduced :-
"In suits for the possessfon of land, 
house~ and 
gardens-according to the value of. the subject matter; and 
such value shall be deemed to be, where the subject 
matter is a house or garden-according_ to the market 
value of the house or garden and where the subject mat-
ter is land." 
(a) ......... . 
(b) ......... . 
(c) ......... . 
According to the High Court the court fee was payable accOi:d-
ing to the value of the subject matter of the suit. 
So far 8.9 the 
houses and gardens were concerned it was the market value on 
which the court fee had to be paid. 
As regards .the land· sub-
clauses (a) , (b) and ( c) contained a qualification with regard 
to those lands which were liable to pay land revenue to;the State. 
Since tank was land covered under water it had to be v.alued as 
on the date of the sui.t without taking into consideration the im-
provements which might have been mad~. The value was .of the 
subject matter and it would be tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.