IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 164 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DT.26.09.2018 IN OS 29/2014 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3:

1 KRISHNAVENI AGED 57 YEARS W/O.PRABHAKARAN, CHOORAKKODE VEEDU, P.O.NHANGATTIRI, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303. 2 JAYA AGED 55 YEARS W/O.MOHANDAS, KUTTATHU VEEDU, P.O.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 576.

3 SHEELA AGED 53 YEARS W/O.VASUDEVAN, KARUVADIYIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUMUDIYUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

BY ADVS.

P.JAYARAM GIGI PAPPACHAN RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS & 4TH PLAINTIFF:

1 BALABHADRAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O.LATE RAMAN, KARUVADIYIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUMUDIYUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

2 T.V.MAMMU AGED 70 YEARS S/O.AYAMUNNI, THEKKATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUMUDIYUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

3 JAYAPRAKASH AGED 47 YEARS S/O.LATE RAMAN, KARUVADIYIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUMUDIYUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JALAJA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.JAYAPRAKASH, KARUVADIYIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUMUDIYUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -

679 303.

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAX, GOVT.

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI DENNY DEVASSY FOR R4 & R5 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 02.02.2022, THE COURT ON 25.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

================================

O.P(C). No.164 of 2022 ================================

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2022

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.29 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Ottappalam, have filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam in the suit, whereby the learned Sub Judge found that plaint A relief was not properly valued and proper court fee also was not paid.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 4 and 5.

Respondents 1 to 3, though served with notice, did not appear. 3. The crux of the matter is that the plaintiffs herein filed Suit for declaration and partition of the plaint schedule properties.

The first prayer in the Suit is to declare that the plaint schedule properties covered by registered documents, viz., 1663/1978, 66/1979, 106/1979, 1059/1978 and 14/1987 were purchased by the earnings of Sri Raman (father), who is no more, for the benefit of all legal heirs of Raman.

4. The second prayer was for partition of the above items and allotment of 4/5 share of the plaintiffs out of the same.

5. In the Suit, the plaint B relief is valued at Rs.13 lakh on the assertion that the market value of the property comes to Rs.13 lakh. Out of which, Rs.10,40,000/- is valued for the purpose of payment of court fee towards 4/5 claimed by the plaintiffs and court fee for the same also was paid. Whereas, as regards to relief `A' is concerned, court fee was paid after valuing `A' relief for Rs.14,700/-, being the total consideration shown in the five documents, under Section 25 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The learned Sub Judge found that since `B' relief is valued at Rs.13 lakh (the market value of the property), `A'

relief also to be valued at Rs.13 lakh as the said amount is the market value for valuing `A' relief, also.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no need to pay court fee based on the market value and the plaintiffs have to pay only fixed court fee in tune with the value shown in the documents. As such, the plaintiffs correctly valued `A' relief the amount in the Suit at Rs.14,700/- and court fee thereof was paid. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge went wrong in finding otherwise, as per the order impugned. The learned coun