SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 433

2010 (4) Supreme 707
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Satheedevi — Appellant
versus
Prasanna and another — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4347 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3597 of 2009)
Decided on : 07-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Court fee is payable on the value of the property for which the document was executed and not its market value.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of Statutes – The intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself – Only when such words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitimately arise -. Further, Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation – Court cannot add words to a statute or read words which are not therein it – Even if there is a defect or an omission in the statute, the Court cannot correct the defect or supply the omission. (Para 10)

        1958 SCR 360; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323; (1966) 3 SCR 366 – Relied upon

        (b) Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 40(1) – Court fee is payable on the value of the property for which the document was executed and not its market value. (Paras 11 to 13)

        (1971) 2 Madras Law Journal 205; AIR 1975 AP 122; AIR 1927 Madras 825; (1967) 80 Madras Law Weekly 19 (SN); (1968) 83 Madras Law Weekly 789 – Approved

        (1972) Kerala Law Times 774; AIR 1982 Kerala 35; (2006) 3 Kerala Law Times 527; AIR 1939 Madras 462; (1964) Kerala Law Times 895; (1966) Kerala Law Times 1046; AIR 1935 Madras 863 – Distinguished

        AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 333; AIR 1971 Madras 380; AIR 1976 Madras 208; AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162; AIR 1932 Madras 605; AIR 1951 Madras 793 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

        1. Sub Judge, Palakkad directed the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the plaint schedule property.

        2. High Court refused to interfere.

        3. This appeal raises an important question of law relating to interpretation of Section 40 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959

       Finding of the Court:

        Court fee is payable on the value of the property for which the document was executed and not its market value.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal filed for setting aside order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No.21820 of 2008 whereby he declined to interfere with the direction given by Sub Judge, Palakkad (hereinafter described as ‘the trial Court’) to the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the plaint schedule property raises an important question of law relating to interpretation of Section 40 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’).

3. The appellant owned 9.98 acres rubber plantation. She executed power of attorney No.376/2006 in favour of her own daughter (respondent No.1 herein). After sometime, respondent No.1 transferred the property to her husband (respondent No.2 herein) by registered sale deed No.1784/2007. The appellant filed O.S. No.231/2007 for cancellation of the power of attorney by alleging that respondent No.1 had misused the same and sold the property to her husband. By an order dated 21.5.2008, the trial Court directed the appellant to pay court fees on the market value of the plaint schedule property. The appellant challenged that order in Writ Petition No.17032/2008 (C) which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court vide his order dated 26.6.2008, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the contentions raised in the plaint, petitioner has to file an application for amendment of the plaint modifying the relief sought for. In the nature of the contentions raised in the plaint, an amendment of the relief is definitely necessary, as found by the learned Sub Judge. In such circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to amend the plaint and to pay the necessary court fee payable on such pleading. It is made clear that the fact that a time limit is fixed by this Court will not prevent the court from granting amendment, as it is necessary for an appropriate adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. It is made clear that the actual court fee payable by the plaintiff is to be decided by the trial Court afresh, taking into consideration the relief sought for in the plaint, in the light of the amendment of the pleading.”

4. In furtherance of the direction given by the High Court, the appellant applied for and she was granted permission to amend the plaint and to incorporate prayer for cancellation of the sale deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. In the amended plaint, value of the property was shown as Rs.7,00,000/- and accordingly, the court fees was paid. However by an order dated 3.7.2008, the trial Court directed the appellant to pay court fee on the market value of the plaint schedule property which was assessed at Rs.12 lakhs per acre.

5. Writ Petition No.21820/2008 filed by the appellant against the above mentioned order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who referred to the judgments of the Division Bench in Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy,1 (1972) Kerala Law Times 774, P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon,2 AIR 1982 Kerala 35 and Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai,3 (2006) 3 Kerala Law Times 527 and held that in terms of Section 40 of the Act, the writ petitioner is required to pay court fees on market value of the property and not on the value specified in the sale deed.

6. Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the interpretation placed by the trial Court and the High Court on Section 40 of the Act is ex facie erroneous and impugned order is liable to be set aside because that section does not provide for payment of court fee on the market value of the property for which the document, which is subject matter of the suit, was executed. Learned counsel emphasized that in terms of Section 40(1), court fees is required to be paid on the value of the property for whi





























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top