IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26216 of 2007(U)
1. RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 62,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANDRAN, AGED 55, S/O.DAMODARAN,
... Respondent
2. BHANUMATHY, AGED 71, W/O.GOVINDAN,
3. SANTHAMMA, AGED 67,
4. RAJAMMA, AGED 59, W/O.MADHAVAN,
5. MANI, AGED 57, W/O.RAMADAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.C.CHARLES
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26216 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 25th June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1391/2005, on the
file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Under Ext.P3 order, Issue No.9
was answered by the learned Munsiff in favour of the respondents-
plaintiffs holding that court fee paid is sufficient. The decree sought
for by the respondents subsequent to the amendment of the plaint
includes a decree for redemption of mortgage deed number 976/1100
M.E. Of SRO, Thripunithura, and after declaring transactions
evidenced by Document No.1668 of 1117 M.E., 1756 of 1119 M.E.,
134 of 1120 M.E. and 599 of 1970 M.E. are ineffective and not
binding on them, and also to declare that purchase certificate issued
by the Land Tribunal in favour of respondent is null and void, and not
binding on the respondents and also for a permanent prohibitory
injunction. The suit was valued for the first relief under Section 33(8)
of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, (for short ‘the Act’)
and relief of injunction under Section 27(c) of the Act and also for the
relief of declaration under Section 25(d)(ii) of the Act.
2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that plaintiffs should have paid court fee, as provided
W.P.(C) No.26216/2007
2
under Section 25(d)(1) of the Act on the market value of the property
and not for Rs.1000/= as has been done in this case. The learned
Munsiff relying on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court
in Sankaran v. Marykutty (1986 KLT 794) found that the court fee
paid is sufficient. The learned counsel argued that the said decision
has no application as it was a suit for partition and in the
circumstances of that case, there was no necessity to pay separate
court fee for the relief of declaration that the settlement deed is
invalid.
On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order warranting interference. The
case of respondents is that purchase certificate was obtained without
impleading them, and the original owners were not impleaded, it is
null and void. It is in such circumstances, decree for declaration that
purchase certificate is null and void was sought. In the circumstance
of the case, it is not necessary to pay court fee on the market value.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
W.P.(C) No.26216/2007
3
nj.