Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Ansilamma, W/o. Late Thobiyas – Appellant
Versus
John Selvarajan, S/o. John Mariyalayam – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2509 of 2019
Decided on : 11-08-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 22, 27(c) - Transfer of Property Act, 1872 - Section 47 - Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 90 - Special Relief Act - Section 39 - 'Suit for realisation of money' - 'Suitcompelling performance of a legal obligation’ - Transfer by co-owners of share in common property - Advantage gained by qualified owner - Mandatory injunctions - whether a constructive trust is created in the facts of the given case as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the proper relief available to the plaintiffs is one in the nature of mandatory injunction dealt under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act - Whether present Suit is a 'Suit for realisation of money' or a 'Suit compelling performance of a legal obligation' - Court considered a suit for declaration that plaintiff had already paid amount due to defendant covered by cheques in question. Then it was held that finding of court below that valuation of plaint under Section 27(c) of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 is proper, cannot be faulted with (Para 18).
Findings of the Court: Defendant is duty bound to deliver money to other co-owners in proportion of their shares, when he fails to discharge legal obligation, Suit cannot be held as one for realisation of money for which court fee under Section 22 of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act to be paid - Similarly, it cannot be said that Suit shall be one seeking relief of declaration and consequential injunction by paying court fee under Section 25(b) of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In this matter, there is breach of obligation on part of 1st defendant to deliver money to plaintiffs, being co-owners. In this scenario, in order to prevent breach of such obligation, it is necessary to compel performance of said obligation by resorting to remedy of mandatory injunction provided under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act and for which, valuation and court fee to be paid shall be, no doubt, under Section 27(c) of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Section 27(c) provides that excluding cases covered under sub sections (a) and (b), sub section (c) is applicable. As per sub section (c) whether subject matter of a suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on amount at which relief sought is valued in plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher. It has to be appreciated that proviso to Section 27(c) has no application to facts of this case since plaintiffs herein not sought any relief in respect of money to be recovered from them.
Result: Petition is allowed
Key Points: - The judgment discusses classification of relief as realisation of money vs. mandatory injunction under Section 39 and Section 27(c) valuation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It addresses computation of court-fee under Section 22 vs. Section 27(c) based on relief sought and nature of the obligation among co-owners (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It considers whether constructive trust/Section 90 Indian Trusts Act and Section 47 Transfer of Property Act influence the relief and its valuation (!) (!) (!) . - It concludes the appropriate relief valuation for mandatory injunction under Section 27(c) where money is involved but ownership/obligation context governs (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1043/2012 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara arraying defendants 1 to 5 and plaintiffs 3 to 5 as respondents.
2. On notice, the 1st and 2nd respondents appeared through Advocate Govind Padmanabhan; 5th respondent appeared through Advocate Vipin P.Varghese; no representation for the other respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Arun.V.G and Advocate Vinod Padmanabhan appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. The summary of the case is as under:
Plaintiffs 1 to 5 filed O.S.No.1043/2012 before the First Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara seeking the following reliefs:
B. Allowing the plaintiffs to realize and recover the cost of this suit from the defendants and their assets.
C. Such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the redressal of plaintiffs' grievance.”
5. The relief sought in the plaint is valued at Rs.500/- and an amount of Rs.20/-was paid under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Ext.P1 is the copy of plaint. The valuation of the Suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Suit was challenged before the Munsiff Court, by the defendants. As per Ext.P6, copy of order dated 14.02.2017 the learned First Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara sustained the said contention. The operative portion of Ext.P6 is as under:
6. Ext.P6 was challenged before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram by preferring CMA.No.15/2017. The learned Additional District Judge-I heard the appeal and delivered Ext.P8 judgment. As per Ext.P8, it was held that the finding of the Additional Munsiff that the Suit was one falling under the proviso to clause (c) of Section 27 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was incorrect. The learned District Judge held that instead of proviso to Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act it falls under Section 22 of the Act. Finally it was ordered as under:
It is settled law that court fee payable is to be decided on basis of averments in plaint and relief sought by plaintiff.
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fees for a suit challenging gift deeds based on the value of the properties mentioned in the gift deeds and the nature o....
Valuation of suit – It is nature of relief claimed in plaint which is decisive of question of suit valuation – Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable prop....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correct payment of court fee in a suit must be determined in accordance with settled legal principles and the specific provisions of the C....
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
