Bombay High Court
SAMABI SHAIKH MOHD. HUSSAIN SHAIKH AND ORS.versusRAGHUNANDAN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN SANJAY P. DARADE AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The exemption under the 1 October 1994 notification applies, rendering the trial court’s rejection of the plaint for non‑payment of court fees unsustainable.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of women, filed a suit seeking declaration that a 1989 release deed concerning ancestral property was void and also sought partition of the property. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground of non‑payment of court fees. The petitioners contended that they were exempt from court fees under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act notification of 1 October 1994, which was in force when the suit was filed in 1998. The court held that the later 2000 notification limiting the exemption to matrimonial matters did not apply to suits filed before its commencement, relying on the judgments in Jyoti S. Doshi v. Hindustan Hosiery Mills and Kiran wd/o Chunnilal Tareja. Consequently, the exemption stood, the trial court’s order was unsustainable, and the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the order of 15 February 2016.
Issues considered
- Whether the exemption from court fees for women litigants under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act notification dated 1 October 1994 applies to a suit filed in 1998 for partition of ancestral property.
- Whether the subsequent notification dated 23 March 2000, which limited the exemption to matrimonial matters, overrides the earlier exemption for the present suit.
- Whether non‑payment of court fees justifies rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 — s. 46
Subjects
- court fees exemption
- women litigants
- ancestral property
- partition suit
- Order VII Rule 11
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- declaration suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35289
Megha 15_wp_3880_2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3880 OF 2016
Samabi Shaikh mohd. Hussain Shaikh
and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Raghunandan Co-op. Housing Society
and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Amey Deshpande with Ms. Vandana Bait and Mr. Harsh Nishar for
the Petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Pawan Tiwari for Respondent No.3.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent -State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 27 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged order dated 15
February 2016 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik,
allowing applications at Exhibits-251, 263 and 267 filed under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for rejection of
the Plaint on account of non-payment of proper court fees.
2) It appears that rejection of the Plaint was also sought on the
ground of limitation. However, the Court held that proper court fees are
Page No.1 of 4
27 August 2026
Megha 15_wp_3880_2016
not paid by the Plaintiffs and therefore the Trial Court granted
opportunity to the Plaintiffs to correct the valuation and to pay proper
court fees.
3) I have heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners, Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1, Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3 and Mr. Kankal, the learned AGP appearing for the
Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
4) The Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs, who all are women for the
purpose of exercising their rights in respect of ancestral property. The
Suit seeks declaration that Release Deed executed on 26 June 1989 is
illegal and ab initio void and not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
have also sought a declaration that alienation made by some of the
Defendants does not bind their shares. The Plaintiffs have also sought
partition of the suit properties. Defendant Nos.7 and 36 filed Application
seeking rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on
which impugned order dated 15 February 2016 is passed.
5) It appears that by notification dated 1 October 1994 issued under
the provisions of Section 46 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 the
State Government remitted fees payable by women litigant on plaints,
applications, petitions, memoranda of appeals or any other documents
to be filed in any civil, family or criminal court in respect of cases
relating to maintenance, property disputes, violence and divorce. At the
Page No.2 of 4
27 August 2026
Megha 15_wp_3880_2016
time when the Regular Civil Suit No. 571 of 1998 was filed, notification
dated 1 October 1994 in its original form was operational. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs were exempted from paying any court fees on the Suit filed for
partition of the ancestral properties. By further notification dated 23
March 2000, notification dated 1 October 1994 was amended and the
expression ‘property disputes’ was clarified to mean only ‘disputes
arising out and concerning matrimonial matters’. Thus, exemption from
payment of court fees on Plaint, Suits for partition and declaration
relating to ancestral property was withdrawn by notification dated 23
March 2000. However, the notification dated 23 March 2000 is
inapplicable to the present case since the Suit was filed in the year 1998.
In my view, therefore, the Plaintiffs were not liable to pay any court fees
in the Suit in view of the notification dated 1 October 1994. In Jyoti S.
Doshi V/s. M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Mills 1 this Court has clarified as
under:-
19. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the
women litigants as well as the Counsel for the defendants as also by
the Advocate General.
(i) As far as the two issues which have been framed by me are
concerned, my answer on Issue No. 2 will be that the Notification
dated 23rd March 2000 will not restrict and/or govern and/or control
the exemption granted by the earlier Notification of 1st October,
1994 with regard to payment of Court fees to women litigants
provided those are suits filed by women litigants in their personal
capacity. The suits filed by them as directors of companies or as
partners of firms will not make them eligible to get the exemption in
the pending matters.
(ii) As far as the applicability of the Notification of 1 st October, 1994
is concerned, which is Issue No. 1, it will continue to apply to the
suits which are already filed and which are pending in this Court
though subject to the above, namely that those suits which are filed
by women directors of companies or women partners of partnership
1 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 118
Page No.3 of 4
27 August 2026
Megha 15_wp_3880_2016
firms will not make them eligible for exemption under the
Notification.
6) Judgment in Jyoti S. Doshi (supra) has been followed by another
coordinate Bench in Kiran wd/o Chunnilal Tareja and Another V/s.
Ramchandra s/o Devidas Talreja and another 2 in which it is held in
paragraph 11 as under:-
11. From perusal of paragraph 19 of the above judgment, it is evident
that the learned Singhle Judge has held that Notification dated 23 rd
March, 2000 will not restrict or govern the exemption granted by
Notification dated 1-10-1994 with regard to the payment of Court fees
by women litigants provided those suits were filed by women litigants in
their personal capacity. The learned Single Judge has further held that
the matters filed on or after 23 rd March, 2000 will be governed by
Notification issued dated 23rd March, 2000.
7) Reliance by Mr. Thorat on judgment of this Court in Girish
Kanaiyalal Munshi V/s. Sudha Girish Munshi & anr. 3 is inapposite. By
that judgment, the Division Bench has clarified that the exemption under
the second notification dated 23 March 2000 does not apply to the
Petition for grant of probate of Will. In Girishi Kanaiyalal Munshi (supra)
the issue before this Court was not about exemption applicable during
window period from 1 October 1994 to 23 March 2000.
8) Considering the above position, the impugned order is
unsustainable. Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 15 February
2016 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed in
above terms and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
2 2008(5) Mh.L.J. 958
3 2008(4) Bom C.R.787
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 27 August 2026
Date: 28/08/2026 14:55:26
Checking your session…