Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29057
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J
RAVINDRAN – Appellant
Versus
PUTHUSSERI ALI – Respondent
CMA 324 1998
SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY SRI.TOMY PAUL, SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R2 & R3 SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SMT. LEELAMMA ANTONY
The court established that jurisdictional objections regarding court fees must be raised in the trial court and cannot be reconsidered on appeal if not properly addressed at the outset.
Headnote:
Contract - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure Section 21(2), Specific Relief Act Sections 27-30, Transfer of Property Act Section 53A - The court analyzed the jurisdictional challenges and maintainability of suits regarding property agreements, emphasizing that substantive claims must be heard on their merits despite prior procedural missteps.
Fact of the Case:
The parties entered into a sale agreement for property. Disputes arose regarding possession and the seller's obligations, leading to separate suits for recovery and injunction. The trial court ruled in favor of the seller, but the lower appellate court remanded the cases for fresh disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the lower appellate court improperly questioned the trial court's jurisdiction without proper basis since the competency issue regarding court fees was not raised previously. The appeals were allowed, and the remand was set aside to resolve the merits.
Issues: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the suits based on the property valuation and whether the objections raised about court fees were valid at the appellate level.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of timely objections regarding court fee sufficiency and jurisdiction of the trial court limited the appellate court's ability to reconsider these issues, emphasizing the principle that maintainability can be argued at any stage, including the appeal.
Final Decision: The order of remand was set aside, directing the lower appellate court to decide the merits of the appeals within six months.
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.45/93 and 153/1998 on the file of the District Court, Kozhikode. The Lower appellate court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court in O.S.Nos.751 & 825 of 1990 and remanded the suits to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the parties to amend the pleadings and to adduce further evidence, if any. The respondent in the said appeals preferred these C.M.Appeals challenging the direction of the Lower Appellate Court remanding the suits for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
2. The plaint schedule property is 6 7/8 cents of land and the building. The property admittedly belongs to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 825/90 (hereinafter referred to as “the seller”). The defendant in the said suit is the purchaser, (hereinafter referred to as “the purchaser”). He is the plaintiff in O.S.No.751/90 and the seller is the defendant in the said suit.
3. On 3/11/1989 the parties entered into an agreement for sale of 8 7/8 cents of land and the building therein. The sale prize was fixed at Rs.1,77,500/-. Out of the said 8 7/8 cents of land, two cents of land were sold to the purchaser's wife by the seller on 4/12/1989. The remaining 6 7/8 cents of land and the building is the subject matter of the above said suits. Subsequent to the sale deed in favour of the purchaser's wife in respect of two cents of land, the parties again executed another agreement on 4/12/1989 for sale of the remaining extent of the property. The sale prize was fixed at Rs.1,71,500/-. Towards the sale consideration admittedly the purchaser paid an amount of Rs.94,000/- on the date of the agreement. The purchaser claimed that on the date of agreement he was put in possession of the plaint schedule property and that he along with his family is residing in the house situated in the property. The period fixed for execution of the sale deed is four months from the date of the agreement. The purchaser complained that the seller did not take steps to obtain purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal nor did he hand over the title deed of the property and the non- encumbrance certificate. There is a dispute regarding the balance to be paid towards the sale consideration. In the year 1990 both the parties have filed the suits. O.S.No.175/90 was filed by the purchaser. The prayer in the said suit was for mandatory injunction directing the seller to hand over the purchase certificate, title deed, tax receipts, clearance certificate etc. The purchaser also prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the seller from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
4. O.S.No.825/90 was filed by the seller. The agreement dated 4/12/1989 is admitted. It is not disputed that the property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.1,71,500/- and that the seller received a sum of Rs.94,000/- as advance amount. It is contended by the seller that the purchaser was not in possession of the entire property. According to him, he retained two rooms in the building and the rest of the rooms in the building were given possession to the purchaser. It was also pleaded that all documents relating to the property and the non- encumbrance certificate have been handed over to the purchaser. The seller contended that the purchaser was responsible for the breach of contract and therefore he has no obligation to sell the property to the purchaser. The suit was filed for a declaration that the sale agreement stands cancelled and for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of plaintiff's title with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per annum. The trial court decreed the suit filed by the seller and dismissed the suit filed by the purchaser.
5. In the appeals preferred by the purchaser, the Lower Appellate Court, after considering the matter, remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Lower Appellate Court examined the suffic
