A suit for mandatory injunction requires a specific valuation based on statutory provisions, particularly for movable property under the Kerala Court Fees Act.

J U D G M E N T

This Regular Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction. The plaint was rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC), for failure to have the suit valued properly in spite of direction by the court. The decree was affirmed in appeal.

2. Availing financial support from the first defendant Bank, the plaintiff purchased a lorry. Alleging default in repayment of the instalments payable, the first defendant seized the vehicle. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming the following reliefs:- “It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree for mandatory injunction compelling the defendant specifically to deliver the vehicle No.KL 18 B 9800 for immediate possession of the said vehicle on condition of payment of instalments due, besides the cost of this proceedings.”

3. The valuation of the suit as shown in paragraph

8 of the plaint is as hereunder :-

4. Issue No.1 raised in the suit was on the sufficiency of the valuation of the suit. As per order dated 02.01.2008, the trial court held that the suit is liable to be valued and Court fee paid in terms of Section 24 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), on the market value of the vehicle. Since the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, the plaint was rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC. The order of rejection, which amounts to a decree, was affirmed in appeal.

5. Heard Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel for the first respondent-first defendant and Sri.V.R.Rekesh on behalf of the second respondent-second defendant.

6. With respect to the claim for possession in respect of a movable or immovable property, there could be two classes/categories of suit. One is, for a mandatory injunction against the person in possession, directing him to surrender/hand over the possession; and secondly, for a decree for recovery of possession of the property. The circumstances under which a suit for mandatory injunction could be laid are limited. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act postulates that, to claim a decree for mandatory injunction there must be an obligation on the part of the person against whom the command is sought to be issued. With regard to a suit for mandatory injunction, valuation and Court fee is in terms of Section 27 (c) of the Act. of the Act reads thus:- “ 27. Suits for injunction.—In a suit for injunction—

(a) Where the reliefs sought is with reference to any immovable property, and (i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or (ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees five hundred], whichever is higher; (b) 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 five hundred], whichever is higher.

(c) in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees five hundred], whichever is higher:

Provided that where the relief sought by the plaintiff is in respect of money sought to be recovered from him such relief shall not, for the purpose of computation of fee, be valued at an amount less than one half of the amount sought to be so recovered.”

7. Here it is worthwhile to note that, Section

27(a) deals with immovable property, Section 27 (b) deals with Intellectual Property Rights,