IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8455 of 2004(F)
1. NAYANTHARA MAHADEVAN, W/O. MAHADEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIKKUNNU.
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
Dated :20/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004
-------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor, J.
The writ petitioner attempted a suit for
injunction, when the State Government sought to
recover an amount by attaching the movable
properties belonging to her. According to her, the
amount was due from her father, who was residing
with her and hence she was not disputing the liability.
She resisted recovery out of her properties. The right
of the defendants to recover the amount from her
properties is disputed. So she was only liable in terms
of the Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Kerala Court
Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 {for short ‘the
Act’}, rather than the proviso to Section 27(c) of the
Act to pay the required court fees. The trial court did
not accept the contention and found that, as recovery
of money is disputed, the court fee payable shall be in
terms of the proviso to Section 27(c) of the Act.
W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004
:: 2 ::
2. It is discerned from the impugned order
Ext.P3 that the said court had relied on the decision
in Kunharamu v. Kunhalankutty {2003(1)KLT
216}. There also the facts were almost similar.
There, when there were revenue dues from a son,
the Government proceeded against the property
jointly owned by the father and son, the father
instituted an injunction suit. Considering that fact
frame, it was found in the said decision that such suit
shall have to be valued in terms of the proviso to
Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Act. Necessarily, the
view taken by the court below in Ext.P3 cannot be
stated to be unjustified.
Hence, the writ petition fails, dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J.
———————————————-
W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004
JUDGMENT
20th December, 2006.
————————————————