Bombay High Court
MR. SADANAND SITARAM MHATRE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH MINISTRY OF REVENUE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order directing payment of court fees under Section 6(iv)(ha) was set aside as the relief sought does not attract that fee provision.
Summary
The petitioners, who are non‑signatories to a 2008 Development Agreement and an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, challenged a civil judge’s order directing them to pay court fees. They sought a declaration that the documents do not bind them, without claiming the instruments are void ab initio. The court examined the distinction between a declaration of total voidness, which attracts fees under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, and a declaration that the documents are not binding on the petitioners’ share, which is assessed under Section 6(iv)(j). Relying on the precedent set in Dilip Khushalchand Jain v. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani, the court held that the latter category does not require fees under 6(iv)(ha). Consequently, the order directing fee payment was set aside, and the petitioners were instructed to amend the prayer clause to delete “null and void‑ab‑initio”. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether court fees under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act are payable when the relief sought is a declaration that a document is not binding on the petitioners’ share, rather than a declaration of total voidness.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 — s. 6(iv)(ha), 6(iv)(j)
Subjects
- court fees
- declaration of non‑binding
- development agreement
- power of attorney
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- civil procedure
Judgment
Sonali Mane 39-WP-3034-2016.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3034 OF 2016
Mr. Sadanand Sitaram Mhatre And Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
State Of Maharashtra, Through
Ministry Of Revenue And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Vijay S. Gharat a/w Mr. Sarvesh Gharat and Ms. Nidhi Mankar for
Petitioners.
Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent-State.
[
Mr. Sandip D. Shinde, for Respondent No.8.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The challenge in the Petition is to the Order dated
2 September 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan,
directing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to deposit Court fees in view of
objection raised by the Registry. The suit, inter alia, challenges
registered Development Agreement dated 20 August 2008 and
registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21 August 2008.
MANE
SONALI The Plaintiffs are admittedly non-signatories to either of the
DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP
Date: 2026.09.18
10:49:07 +0530
documents. They essentially seek a declaration that both the
___Page No.1 of 3___
16 September 2026
Sonali Mane 39-WP-3034-2016.docx
documents do not bind the Plaintiffs. However, it appears that prayer
clause (c) in the plaint also seeks a declaration that the registered
Development Agreement and the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney
are null and void.
2) Mr. Gharat, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, on
instructions, submits that prayer clause (c) shall be restricted only to
seeking a declaration that the registered Development Agreement and
the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney would not be binding on the
share of the Plaintiffs. The law with regard to payment of Court fees on
an instrument for sale to which the Plaintiffs are not signatories is now
well settled by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dilip
Khushalchand Jain and Ors. Vs. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani and Ors .,1.
It is held by this Court that if a declaration is sought that the sale deed
is void qua the whole world, Court fees under Section6(iv)(ha)of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 needs to be paid. However, where a
declaration is sought that sale deed is not binding on the share of the
Plaintiffs, valuation of the suit can be under Section 6(iv)(j) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act.
3) In the present case, the Plaintiffs want to restrict their
challenge only to a declaration that the Development Agreement and
the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney would not be binding on the
share of the Plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to
pay Court fees on the suit under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act. The Impugned Order dated 2 September 2013 is
1 Writ Petition No. 8968 of 2018, decided by this Court, Bench at Aurangabad on 5 May 2022
___Page No.2 of 3___
16 September 2026
Sonali Mane 39-WP-3034-2016.docx
accordingly set aside. The Plaintiffs shall carry out a formal
amendment in prayer clause 26(c) of the suit by deleting the words
"null and void-ab-intio".
4) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.3 of 3___
16 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.