1 wp 5450.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5450 OF 2011 1. Shaikh Rashid S/o Shaikh Hamid, Age : 23 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o Garkheda, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Shaikh Rakid S/o Shaikh Hamid, Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o Garkheda, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Shaikh Mujib S/o Shaikh Hamid, Age : 17 Years, Occu. : Education, Minor U/G of his brother Petitioner No. 1 R/o Garkheda, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Shaikh Hamid S/o Shaikh Jamal, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Garkheda, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Sow. Manju W/o Shriram Dahat, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o House No. 5/15/6 P, Bhim Nagar, Bhausingpura, Aurangabad. .. Respondents 2 wp 5450.11 Shri A. G. Ansari, Advocate h/f Shri Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri D. R. Kale, Advocate for Respondents CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is not binding on them and for possession of land gat No. 313. The Court sue moto raised an objection of insufficiency of court fees. The Court passed an order that the plaintiffs will have to pay ad-valorem court fees as required under Sec. 6(iv)(d) and Sec. 6(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. Said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the suit is not for cancellation of sale deed, but the same is for declaration and the property of which the possession is sought is 3 wp 5450.11 susceptible to the land revenue. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not required to pay court fees as directed by the Court as full ad-valorem. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 3308. 4. Shri Kale, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the sale deed has been executed on behalf of present plaintiffs, as such it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are not executants. 5. The suit is filed for declaration that the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and the same is not for cancellation. The provisions as relied by the Court below would not be applicable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh referred supra. In view of that the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “C”. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11