Is Section 24 or Section 50 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (in short 'the 1959 Act') applicable for payment of court fee in a suit for redeeming the goods pledged by a pawnor? In such a suit, if the plaintiff seeks a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the pawnee from selling the pledged goods, should the suit be valued under the proviso to Section 27(c) of the 1959 Act? These questions arise in this petition.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for following reliefs:

"A] Allowing the plaintiff to redeem the gold ornaments pledged with the defendant with 12% interest for the principal amount from 15/10/2010 to 07/04/2011;

B] A permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the notice dated 22/02/2013 and also from taking any further steps in the matter till the disposal of suit.

C] Directing the defendants to pay cost of this proceedings to the plaintiff.

D] Grant such other relief, which this court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Relevant facts in short are that the plaintiff (petitioner) borrowed a sum of Rs.38,87,600/- from the defendant (respondent), an incorporated Company, mainly engaged in the business of gold loans. The borrowal was on 15.10.2010. Petitioner pledged gold ornaments to secure the loan. According to him, the agreed rate of interest payable was 12%. Admittedly, there was a default on the part of the petitioner in repaying the money borrowed. It is his case that when approached, the respondent demanded 30% interest for the amount. Hence, he filed the suit for the reliefs.

3. As per Ext.P2 order, the trial court ordered to return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code'). Reasoning adopted by the trial court is that the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction claimed in the suit was incorrectly valued at Rs.500/-. The court below opined so as it found that the relief was in respect of movable properties (gold ornaments) worth more than Rs.60 lakhs. According to the court of first instance, the court fee paid, therefore, was insufficient. Besides, the relief of injunction sought, viz; prohibiting the respondent from taking any steps to sell the pledged goods worth about Rs.60 lakhs, is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's court. Hence, the plaint was ordered to be returned.

3. The order was challenged in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Court. Ext.P3 is the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge too found that the court fee paid on Ext.P1 plaint was not correct. For prayer A, court fee should have been paid under Section 24 of the 1959 Act. Appellate court found that the order to return the plaint was perfectly legal and therefore refused to interfere.

4. Heard Shri. Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent, though served stayed away.

5. On the following grounds, the judgments of the courts below are challenged. Observations made by the lower appellate court that court fee should have been paid under Section 24 of the 1959 Act is incorrect. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said Section has no application to the facts in this case. Section 24 of the 1959 Act is in respect of a suit for movable property. On a reading of the Section, it can be seen that the first part of the Section deals with a suit for movable property other than documents of title. Sub Section (2) of the said Section is relating to a suit for possession of documents of title. The relevant portion of Section 24 of the 1959 Act is quoted hereunder:

"24. Suits for movable property.-

(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed-

(a) where the subject-matter has a market value, on such value; or

(b) where the subject-matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint."

6. Settled propositi