Bombay High Court
MR. ALEX PETER DABREversusMR. JAYESH ALEX DABRE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The civil revision application is dismissed, and the plaint cannot be rejected without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the valuation and pay any deficit court fee.
Summary
The applicant, Alex Peter Dabre, filed a civil revision seeking the rejection of a plaint on the grounds of under‑valuation of the suit claim and non‑payment of requisite court fees under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the CPC. The trial court had dismissed the applicant’s application, holding the suit claim properly valued. The applicant contended that the property included residential houses and shops, which should affect valuation, and argued that the trial court erred in not allowing correction of the valuation and payment of any deficit fee. The High Court noted that valuation of land that may have been converted from agricultural to non‑agricultural use is a matter for trial and cannot be decided at the threshold, and cited the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Sec. 6(v) & (vii)) and a Division Bench precedent that a plaintiff not party to a gift deed need not pay fees on market value when seeking a declaration. Consequently, the Court held that the plaint cannot be summarily rejected and the applicant must be given an opportunity to rectify the valuation, dismissing the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of under‑valuation and non‑payment of court fees.
- Whether the conversion of agricultural land to non‑agricultural use for valuation purposes should be decided at the trial stage.
- Whether a plaintiff not a party to a gift deed is required to pay court fees on the market value of the property when seeking a declaration that the deed does not bind the plaintiff.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11(b), Order VII Rule 11(c)
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 — s. Section 6(v), Section 6(vii)
Subjects
- court fees
- valuation of suit claim
- civil procedure
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- under‑valuation
- civil revision
- property conversion
- non‑agricultural land
Judgment
15 CRA 344 OF 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2026
Alex Peter Dabre ... Applicant
versus
Jayesh Alex Dabre and Ors. … Respondents
Ms. Srushti Chalke i/by Mr. Drupad Patil, for Applicant.
SWAROOP
SHARAD CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
PHADKE
Digitally signed by
SWAROOP
SHARAD PHADKE
DATE : 7 JULY 2026
Date: 2026.07.08
20:13:18 +0530
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 16
June 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vasai, whereby the application
preferred by the Applicant – Defendant No.1, for rejection of the plaint on the
ground of under-valuation of the suit claim and non-payment of the requisite
court fees, under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected.
3. Ms. Chalke, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the
averments in the plaint indicate that, not only there are residential houses, but
also the shops over the suit property No.1. Thus, the Trial Court was in error
in holding that the suit claim was properly valued.
4. From the perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the suit
property No.1 is assessed to revenue. Under the provisions of Section 6(v)
SSP 1/3
15 CRA 344 OF 2026.doc
and (vii) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, where the land is held on a
permanent settlement or on a settlement for any period exceeding thirty years
and pays the full assessment to the Government then the market value of
such land shall be deemed to be a sum equal to eighty times the survey
assessment. In the facts of the case at hand, whether the houses
constructed over the property No.1 have the propensity to convert the
agricultural land assessed to revenue into a non-agricultural land, is a matter
which warrants adjudication at the trial. At the threshold, the Court cannot
draw an inference as to whether the land has been converted to non-
agricultural use.
5. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench judgment of
this Court Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain and Ors. V/s. Hardik
Deepakbhai Ramani and Ors.1, since the Plaintiff is not a party to the gift
deed, the Plaintiff is not required to pay court fees on the market value of the
property No.2, when the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the said instrument
does not bind the Plaintiff.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and having regard to the fact that
the plaint cannot be rejected straightaway without providing an opportunity to
the Plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the deficit court fee, at this
juncture, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
1 WP No.8968 of 2018 dt. 5 May 2022 Aurangabad Bench
SSP 2/3
15 CRA 344 OF 2026.doc
order. It would be open for the Defendants to raise the ground of improper
valuation of the suit claim and the deficit court fees allegedly paid thereon. In
the event, such a dispute is raised, the trial Court shall decide the same along
with other issues that may arise for determination at the trial, without being
influenced by any of the observations in the impugned order.
7. With the aforesaid clarification, the Civil Revision Application stands
dismissed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/3
Checking your session…