Acknowledgment of a sale deed without seeking annulment eliminates the need for a property valuation report in legal disputes.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of

2007, on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad. Respondents are the defendants. The suit was filed for a mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule property. I.A.No.726 of 2008 was filed by the respondent for appointment of a commission. In Ext.P4 application, appointment of a commissioner was sought to identify the plaint schedule property, to ascertain its approximate market value and also to find whether the property is in a commercially important locality. Ext.P5 objection was filed contending that a report as sought for is not necessary for resolving the disputes involved in the suit, and, therefore, petition is to be dismissed. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Sub Judge appointed a commission without considering the objection raised by the respondents, holding that he was satisfied that appointment of Commission is necessary for a just disposal of the case. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside Ext.P6 order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents were heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as the suit now stands, there is no necessity for a report from a commissioner as sought for in Ext.P4 application. It was argued that respondents admitted execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but only contended that it is a sham document and the sale deed is not sought to be set aside, and, therefore, value of the property or the locality of the property are not at all relevant or necessary facts for resolving the disputes involved in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the property is worth more than Rs.1.5 crores and the sale consideration shown is only Rs.20 lakhs, and, therefore, the report of the Commissioner is necessary.

5. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when respondents admit execution of the sale deed and does not seek a decree to set aside the sale deed or a declaration that it is void on any vitiating grounds by preferring a counter claim, report of the Commissioner is not necessary. Unfortunately, this aspect was not considered by the learned Sub Judge. Infact, Ext.P5 objection filed by the plaintiff was not considered at all. Ext.P6 order is therefore quashed. Sub Judge is directed to consider I.A.No.726 of 2008 afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. It is made clear that if no counter claim is filed and the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was not sought to be set aside or declared void, report by the Commissioner, as sought for, is not necessary for deciding the suit.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.