Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mridula Bhatkar

JUDGMENT

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. In all these Civil Revision Applications, the order dated 26.3.2015 passed by the 16th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, is challenged. The issue pertains to payment of Court fees under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs i.e., the respondents, have filed respective suits for specific performance, declaration and injunction. The land is owned by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and the original defendant Nos. 5 to 16 have given consent for the same. So, different agreements were executed with original plaintiffs i.e., the respondents on 12.4.1991 and thereafter as the original defendants, the original landlords, did not act pursuant to the agreement, so the first purchasers i.e., the original plaintiffs, filed suits for specific performance. The original plaintiffs had knowledge that on 3.3.2005, the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 had entered into agreement with defendant No. 17 in respect of the sale of the said lands. Further, the sale deed dated 3.5.2007 was executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant No. 7 and defendant Nos. 19 to 36. Therefore, during pendency of the suit, subsequently, defendant Nos. 19 to 36 were added as party defendants by way of amendment. Thus, in the original suit, alongwith the prayer for specific performance of the agreement dated 12.4.1991, a prayer asking for execution of the sale deed and also handing over peaceful possession of the suit property was sought. It was further prayed that the agreements between defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant No. 17 dated 3.3.2005 is to be declared void and ab initio. These being Suits for specific performance, the plaintiffs have valued their suits ad-valorem to the amount of consideration and their claim of possession in the suit property. Besides, the main prayer and other prayer for declaration, the plaintiffs valued the suit under section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. During the pendency of the suit, application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was made that the plaintiffs have failed to value the suit correctly and they have not paid proper court fees as per the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act which should be valued under section 6(iv) (ha). Amendment was sought and prayer made that the Sale Deed dated 3.5.2007 executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of defendant Nos. 18 to 35 be declared void and not binding on him. The said application was rejected by the trial Court and held that the suit was properly valued. Hence, these Civil Revision Applications.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the suit is not only for specific performance but there is also a prayer for declaration that the development agreement dated 3.3.2005 between defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant No. 17 be declared null and void. The learned Counsel has submitted that the consideration shown in the development agreement is Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and which is susceptible to the monetary consideration. He further submitted that by way of amendment, application below exhibit 53, defendant Nos. 19 to 36 were impleaded and the prayer clauses c(i), c(e) were included. Thereby, the plaintiffs added the prayers that the sale deed dated 3.5.2007 executed between defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of defendant Nos. 18 to 35 is not binding on him and the learned Counsel argued that in view of these prayers, in respect of the other deeds, the suit should have been valued as per section 6(iv) (ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs did not carry out the amendment in the valuation of the suit and continued w........