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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Muhammedali – Appellant
Versus
Amina Kutty – Respondent
O.P(C) No. 1591 of 2024
Decided on : 10-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.B.Krishnan (Sr. Advocate), Manu Vyasan Peter, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George & B. Anusree
For the Respondent:K.P. Sudheer & Arundhati Nair For Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The valuation of a suit for recovery of possession must reflect the market value as per the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and claims for rental value must be substantiated with evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Sections 6(2), 7(3), 7(3A), and 30 - Challenge to the dismissal of an application to amend the valuation of a suit for recovery of possession - The court found that the relief for recovery of possession is chargeable with the highest fee and must be valued based on market value as per the Act. (Paras 6, 8, 9)

(B) Court's findings - The court upheld the trial court's order, confirming that the valuation must be based on the market value of the property as on the date of the plaint, and that the petitioner failed to provide evidence for the claimed rental value. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, a plaintiff in a suit for boundary fixation and recovery of possession, sought to amend the valuation of the suit, claiming it was based on a mistake regarding the rental value of the property. The trial court rejected this amendment, leading to the original petition.

Findings of Court:

The court confirmed that the relief for recovery of possession is the main relief and must be valued accordingly under the relevant sections of the Act, dismissing the petitioner's claims for amendment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the valuation of the suit could be amended based on the rental value of the property and the proper application of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the valuation must reflect the market value of the property as per the Act, and the petitioner did not substantiate the claim for rental value, thus the trial court's order was upheld.

Result: The original petition is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document primarily pertains to issues related to the valuation of a suit for recovery of possession under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, and does not explicitly discuss arbitral awards or the court fee applicable to such awards.

Based on the content, the judgment focuses on the correct valuation of the suit based on market value or rental value, the application of relevant sections of the Act, and the procedural aspects related to amending the valuation of the suit. There is no mention or discussion of arbitral awards, their recognition, or the court fee, if any, associated with arbitral awards within this judgment.

Therefore, this judgment does not provide any discussion or guidance regarding arbitral awards and their court fee.


JUDGMENT

The above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order in IA No.3 of 2024 in O.S. No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri wherein Ext.P9 application seeking to amend the valuation portion in the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:

The petitioner herein is the 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri, a suit filed seeking fixation of boundary between the plaint A and B schedule properties, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining trespass and for other reliefs. The plaint was subsequently amended by filing I.A.No.252/2013 incorporating a prayer for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule on the strength of the plaintiff's title, in the event it is found that the plaintiffs have lost possession of the same. Petitioner took a contention that the additional relief of recovery of possession incorporated by way of an amendment is only an ancillary relief as it depends upon the main relief. The Trial Court overruled the contentions of the plaintiffs and passed Ext.P7 order finding that the relief of recovery of possession is chargeable with the highest fees and therefore the plaintiffs have to pay court fee as per Section 30 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1959 (for short the 'Act 1959'), and the petitioner was directed to take steps within 20 days to amend the valuation portion of the plaint and pay court fee for relief of recovery of possession specifying the manner in which the market value of plaint A schedule is assessed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in OP(C) No.3103 of 2016 before this Court. This Court confirmed the said order as per Ext.P8 order and the plaintiffs were directed to remit the court fee on the relief of recovery of possession and clarified that plaintiffs can value the property based on the market price as envisaged in the impugned order and in terms of Section 7 of the Act 1959. Later on, the petitioner filed IA No.3 of 2024 seeking to amend the valuation portion in the suit contending that certain mistakes had crept in while computing the same. Petitioner contended that relief 'C' in respect of recovery of possession has to be valued on the basis of the rental value of the building. To Ext.P9 application filed as IA No.3 of 2024, respondent No.2 filed Ext.P10 objection and the Trial Court by Ext.P11 order rejected the request for amendment. It is the said order that is challenged in this original petition.

3. Petitioner submits that the valuation incorporated is a mistake and is entitled to rectify the same. It is contended that the building situated in 'A' schedule property are comprising of commercial shop rooms and therefore the valuation of the building has to be taken u/S.7(3) of the Act 1959 for the purpose of the valuation of the suit.

4. The respondents entered appearance and seriously opposed the application contending that the petitioner's request was rightly rejected by the Trial Court by Ext.P11 order.

5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.

6. The Trial Court as per Ext.P7 order entered a finding that the relief for recovery of possession is not in any way depending upon the relief for fixation of boundary and on the other hand the question of granting relief of recovery of possession arises when the relief of fixation of boundary alone cannot be granted and going by Section 6(2) of the Act,1959 where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees leviable in respect of any of the reliefs. Since the relief of recovery of possession is chargeable with the higher fee and therefore, the plaintiffs have to pay court fee u/s.30 of the Act 1959. Section 6(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 reads as follows:

    “(2) Where more relief

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