Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56647
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE
13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 2752 OF 2024 OS NO.83 OF 2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/ COMMERCIAL COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER/S:
SHINY BENOY,AGED 47 YEARS,UNNIKOODARAM VEETTIL, DAVID COLONY, CHILAVANNOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT FROM KUTTISRAKKUDY, POTHANIKKAD KARA, POTHANIKKADU VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686671 BY ADV M.KANNAN RESPONDENT/S:
1 LEELAMMA KURYAN ( DIED ), KUTTISRAKKUDI, POTHANIKKADU KARA POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686671
2 SHIBU ISAC,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O. ISAC KUTTISRAKKUDIYIL VEEDU POTHANIKKADU KARA POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686671
3 JIMMY SCARIA,KUTTISRAKKUDY THARUTHALA KARA,VANNAPURAM VILLAGE MULLARINGADU.P.O, THODUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 685582
4 SHERLY KURIAN,D/O. LEELAMMA KURIAN, KAVAKKATTU OVUNKAL HOUSE, MAROTTICHODU.P.O, KALADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574
5 SHEENA MATHEW,D/O. LEELAMMA KURIAN, KUTTISRAKKUDY, POTHANIKKAD KARA, POTHANIKKADU VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686671
6 ELDHO JACOB JOY,AGED 29 YEARS S/O. JACOB JOY, SHYS VILLA, 401(11/326), TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
7 ELIZABATH SHAIBY JOY,AGED 24 YEARS D/O. JACOB JOY, SHYS VILLA, 401(11/326), TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT D, PIN - 682301 BY ADVS.RAMNATH M.P ARJUN S.
BEPIN PAUL(K/1215/2003)
S.SANDHYA(K/81/2012)
SHALU VARGHESE(K/322/2009)
UMA R.KAMATH(K/622/2006)
K.J.SEBASTIAN(S-1054)
P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL)(K/269/2007) M.VARGHESE VARGHESE(K/1014/2003)
ANTONY THARIAN(K/000479/2018)
SHANTHI JOHN(K/1677/2021)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 5.12.2024, ALONG WITH OP(C).2834/2024, THE COURT ON 13.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE
13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 2834 OF 2024 OS NO.83 OF 2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/ COMMERCIAL COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER/S:
SHIBU.K.ISSAC, AGED 53 YEARS S/O ISSAC, BUSINESS, KUTTISRAKUDIYIL, POTHANIKADU VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686671 BY ADVS.M.P.RAMNATH P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) M.VARGHESE VARGHESE K.J.SEBASTIAN UMA R.KAMATH S.SANDHYA BEPIN PAUL SHALU VARGHESE ANTONY THARIAN SHANTHI JOHN RESPONDENT/S:
1 SHINY BENOY, AGED 47 YEARS (CORRECT AGE 50 YEARS), W/O. BENOY& D/O LATE K.K.KURIAN & LATE LEELAMMA KURIAN, UNNIKOODARAMVEETTIL, DAVID COLONY, CHILVANNOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 020, FROM KUTTISRAKKUDY, POTHANIKKAD KARA, POTHANIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTHAMANALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686671
2 LEELAMMA KURYAN (DIED), KUTTISRAKKUDI, POTHANIKKADU KARA POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 686671
3 JIMMY SCARIA, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ISAC, KUTTISRAKKUDI, THARUTHALA KARA, VANNAPURAM VILLAGE, MULLARINGADU P.O, THODUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 685582
4 SHERLY KURIAN, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. BEN & D/O LATE K.K.KURIAN& LATE LEELAMMA KURIAN, KAVAKKATTU (CORRECT NAME KAVALAKKATTU) OVUNKAL HOUSE, MAROTTICHODU, MATTOOR P.O, KALADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683574
5 SHEENA MATHEW, AGED 43 YEARS W/O. MATHEW & D/O LATE K.K.KURIAN& ; LATE LEELAMMAKURIAN,HOUSE NO.84, 6 TH CROSS ROAD, GIRI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK PIN 682 020, FROM KUTTISRAKKUDY, POTHANIKKAD KARA, POTHANIKAKDU VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686671 6 ELDHO JACOB JOY, AGED 31 YEARS S/O JACOB JOY& LATE SHAIBYKURIAN SHYS VILLA, 18/401(11/326), SHAKTHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682301, ALSO REP BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOY JACOB, S/O. CHACKO,SHYS VILLA, 18/401(11/326), SHAKTHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682301
7 ELIZABATHSHAIBY JOY, AGED 26 YEARS D/O. JACOB JOY LATE SHAIBY KURIAN, SHYS VILLA, 18/401(11/326), SHAKTHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682301, ALSO REP BY HER FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOY JACOB, S/O. CHACKO, SHYS VILLA, 18/401(11/326), SHAKTHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN -
682301 BY ADV ARJUN S.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2024, ALONG WITH OP(C).2752/2024, THE COURT ON 13.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
[OP(C) Nos.2752/2024 and 2834/2024]
(Dated this the 13th day of December 2024)
The petitioner in O.P.(C.) No.2752 of 2024 is the plaintiff, and the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.2834 of 2024 is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.83 of 2020 pending before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The issue involved in both these Original Petitions is regarding the court fee payable in the suit. Therefore, both the Petitions are heard together, and a common judgment is passed.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of O.P.(C)s are as follows:
The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the settlement deed No.1135 /1/2016 dated 30.6.2016 of Pothanikkad SRO as null and void. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Regarding the valuation and payment of court fee, the 2nd defendant contended that the court fee paid is incorrect as the title deeds show the property's market value as Rs.52,33,000/-, but nowhere in the plaint it is stated how the valuation was arrived. The plaintiff ought to have valued the subject matter for the market value of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit for payment of Court fee. Since such a contention was raised, an issue was raised regarding the proper court fee to be paid, and it was heard as a preliminary issue. The court below, after hearing the parties, held that the plaintiff has to pay court fee as provided under Section 25(d)(i) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Court Fees Act’) taking the market value of the property mentioned in the documents as Rs.52,33,000/-. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant challenge the same order in these Original Petitions.
3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.2752 of 2024 is that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is wrong as the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and the suit is valued under Section 25(1)(b) of the Court Fees Act. Being a suit for declaratory decree, the counsel for the respondents argued that the suit is to be valued under Section 25(d)(i) of the Court Fees Act.
4. For a proper understanding of the issue involved, Section 25 of the Court Fees Act, is extracted below:
“25. Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 26-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, the fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand), whichever is higher, (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on (Rupees one thousand), whichever is higher, (c) where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on (Rupees one thousand), whichever is higher, (d) in other cases-
(i) where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property, and (ii) where the subject-matter of the suit is not capable of valuation, the fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees one thousand], whichever is higher.”
As the subject matter of the suit is for a prayer for declaration, the suit is valued at half of the market value of the property, which comes to Rs.25.6 lakhs and the court fee is calculated as Rs.2,30,400/- and 1/10 of the same is paid. The market value is taken as Rs.52,33,000/- being the market value of the property mentioned in the document, which is sought to be d
