1 C.R.A.540/2009 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2009 Shri Nivrutti K. Khole and Ors. ...Applicants. v. Shri Trambak S. Godse and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Prasad D. Dani, adv. For the Applicants. Mr.Shrishailya S. Deshmukh, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 5. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed Special Civil Suit No.44 of 2006 for specific performance of the contract for sale of land and by the same suit, they also sought declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant nos.10 to 14, who are the present applicants, is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiffs. Suit was valued at Rs.1,60,000/-. Court-fee was paid by the plaintiffs on the basis of agreed amount of consideration in the agreement for sale in their favour. Defendant nos.10 to 14 made an application challenging the valuation of the suit and payment of Court fee. According to them, they had purchased suit property for a consideration of Rs.15 lacs and if the sale 2 C.R.A.540/2009 deed in their favour was to be set aside, suit has to be valued and Court- fee has to be paid on the basis of value of the sale deed in their favour. The trial Court after hearing the parties held that the suit was properly valued and the Court-fee was correctly paid. That order is challenged in the present revision application by the original defendant nos.10 to 14. 3 It appears that the defendant nos.10 to 14 had previously entered into an agreement with the original owner to purchase the property. That agreement of 1980 was cancelled and the suit filed by the defendant nos.10 to 14 against the owner for specific performance was dismissed. The plaintiffs entered into agreement with the owner Mahadu for purchase of land for consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. Later on , the defendant nos.10 to 14 got the sale deed executed for consideration of Rs.15 lacs from Mahadu. Plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for specific performance of the contract. Naturally, as per the agreement between the plaintiffs and the owner of the land, the consideration for sale was fixed at Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, suit for the specific performance would be required to be valued on the basis of the agreed consideration and ad- valorem Court fee would be required to be paid. The plaintiffs sought declaration that the subsequent sale deed in favour of the defendant nos. 10 to 14 was not binding on them and, therefore, it was null and void 3 C.R.A.540/2009 against them. Plaintiffs did not want to claim anything on the basis of that sale deed. That relief was only consequential in nature. Therefore, valuation of the suit could not be Rs.15 lacs, on the basis of sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.10 to 14. If that sale deed would be sought to be set aside by the vendors, matter would be different. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find no substance in the present revision application. 4 Revision application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)