1 W.P.No.4556/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4556 OF 2011. 1. Chandrakant S/o Nivratti Batkulwar, Age 49 years, Occ.Agri and Service, R/o Degloor presently at Latur, Dist. Latur. 2. Nivratti S/o Ramchandra Batkulwar, Age 81 years, Occ.Business and Agri., R/o Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 3. Eknath S/o Nivratti Batkulwar, Age 47 years, Occ.Agri and Business, R/o Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 4. Tukaram S/o Nivratti Batkulwar, Age 45 years, Occ.Agri and Business, R/o Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 5. Namdeo S/o Nivratti Batkulwar, Age 39 years, Occ.Agri and Business, R/o Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Tahsildar Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 3. The Talathi Saza, Degloor. 4. Dalchand S/o Ramhari Agrawal, 2 W.P.No.4556/11 Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Gandinagar, Degloor, At present Row House Last Garden, Opp.Ajinkay City, Ambajogai Road, Dist.Latur. 5. Rajkumar S/o Ramhari Agrawal, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Gandhinagar, Degloor, At present Raj Oil Industries Marketyard, Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. 6. Chimanseth S/o Ramhari Agrawal, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Gandhinagar, Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 7. Sheshikant S/o Narayan Chidrawar, Age 54 years,Occ.Business and Agri., R/o Hotelbase Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 8. Dr.Ravindra S/o Narayan Chidrawar, Age 56 years, Occ.Medical Practitioner, R/o Dr.Lane, Nanded Dist. Nanded. 9. Girish S/o Kishanrao Chidrawar, Age 42 years,Occ.Business and Agri., R/o Talgalli, Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 10. Kishan S/o Ramanna Chidrawar, Age 63 years, Occ.Business and Agri., R/o Talgalli, Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 11. Dr.Sunil S/o Bubhashrao Balurkar (Biradar), Age 33 years, Occ.Medical Practitioner, R/o Sadhnagar, Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 12. Dr. (Sow) Geeta W/o Sunil Balurkar, Age 29 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o as above. ... Respondents. 3 W.P.No.4556/11 ... Mr.B.B.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for Respondent No. 7. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of agricultural land which is assessed to land revenue. During pendency of the suit, the defendants alienated the property by way of a registered sale deed. The petitioners amended the plaint and also challenged the said sale deed executed pendente lite. Thereafter, the 4 W.P.No.4556/11 objection was raised by the defendants about the payment of Court fees. The trial Court vide its order dated 12.1.2011, allowed the objection and directed the plaintiffs to pay Court fees on the consideration of the sale transaction dated 3.7.2010 i.e. pendente lite sale transaction. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the sale deed which is sought to be challenged by way of amendment is executed during pendency of the suit, the petitioner is not required to pay Court fees on the same and relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 3569/2010, dated 22.9.2010, wherein this Court held thus : "8. Thus this discussion shows that in a title suit valued appropriately initially, the challenge to lis pendense transfer is not essential. The party who 5 W.P.No.4556/11 indulges in such prohibited act can not thereby require the aggrieved party to alter the otherwise valid valuation already made and pay more Court fee due to such acts. Above logic applied in relation to suits for specific performance can also very well be extended to title suits of present nature where the decree may show total absence of right in defendant vendor to deal with the immovable property. Moreover, here in suit as filed originally there was no prayer for possession as plaintiff then claimed to be in possession. However, in amended plaint he has pleaded forcible dispossession on 14.7.2009 and has added a prayer for decree for recovery thereof. He has also claimed that Court fee for relief of restoration of possession on the basis of land revenue is already paid. This is not found incorrect or wrong by the Trial 6 W.P.No.4556/11 Court. It is apparent that in present matter, there is no question of plaintiffs paying any court fee for that relief on sale consideration paid by added defendant No.6 on 08.09.2009. Hence, even said objection of petitioners is misconceived." 5. Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 submits the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3569/2010, can be distinguished on facts. In the said case, this Court relied on the earlier judgment of this Court in "Khanderao Bhujangrao Babar Vs.Bharatbai Shrimant Gomsale reported in 2009 (3) ALL MR 568, which was the suit for specific performance. There the right was accrued in pursuant to the agreement of sale and in the present case,the right in favour of the plaintiffs is yet to be accrued inasmuch the plaintiffs are seeking declaration as to their title. 6. In W.P.No.3569/2010 i.e. the judgment 7 W.P.No.4556/11 relied by Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit was for declaration of title and possession. In the present case also the suit is for declaration of title and possession. It is a trite law that transactions pendente lite need not be specifically challenged and the transferee is bound by the decree. Be that as it may, the said transfer pendente lite is being assailed by the plaintiffs by way of an amendment and has also challenged the sale deed. This Court in W.P.No.3569/2010, decided on 22.9.2010, has specifically held that even if such transfers are challenged, the Court fees is not required to be paid on the sale consideration of the said transaction. 7. In view of the same, the impugned order can not be sustained. 8. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). However, there shall 8 W.P.No.4556/11 be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp4556.11