IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17486 of 2008(F)
1. SHAREEFA, W/O.P.M.REHIM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), HOSDURG PO.,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANATHADY, PO.
4. KHADEEJA.P., W/O.LATE IBRAHIM RESIDING
For Petitioner :SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
WP(C).No. 17486 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.205 of 2007 on
the file of Munsiff Court, Hosdurg. Suit is filed for
a declaration that revenue recovery proceedings
initiated by second respondent in RR(ST)22/2007-2008 is
not binding on the suit property and for an injunction
restraining respondents from attaching the property or
movables in the house. Respondents/defendants in the
written statement raised a contention that suit is not
properly valued and court fee paid is not sufficient.
Issue No.4 was framed on the said contention. Learned
Munsiff, as per order dated 9.4.2008, following the
Division Bench decision of this court in Sreekumaran V.
State of Kerala (1996(2) KLT 21), directed petitioner
to pay the court fee, after valuing the property at
Rs.4,34,720/-, being the amount claimed in the notice
served under the revenue recovery proceedings. It is
challenged in this petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
pointed out that revenue recovery proceedings was
WP(C) 17486/2008 2
initiated against 4th respondent, the assignor of
petitioner as distinct from the facts of the case in
Sreekumaran’s case(supra) and there was no demand for
tax as against the petitioner and therefore learned
Munsiff was not justified in directing payment of court
fee, on the amount demanded in the notice.
3. Petitioner has paid court fee of only
Rs.1000/-, valuing the relief as provided under Section
25(d) (i) of Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act
(in short ‘the Act’). As rightly found by the learned
Munsiff, when the decree sought for is a declaration
that respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to proceed
against the plaint schedule property, the suit should
have been valued as provided under Section 25(d)(i) of
the Act and to that extent, Ext.P3 order is perfectly
correct.
4. But as long as petitioner is not the defaulter
and the amount is not claimed from the petitioner and
no relief is sought as against the liability of fourth
respondent, there is no justification in directing
payment of court fee on the basis of the amount
demanded from 4th respondent.
5. When the question of valuation and court
fee to be paid is to be decided what is to be
WP(C) 17486/2008 3
looked into is the substance of the relief prayed
for by the plaintiff. When the declaration sought
for is that plaintiff has no liability to pay any
amount which is demanded under the revenue recovery
proceedings and a consequential decree for
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the
authorities from proceeding further with the
revenue recovery proceedings, it is a case where
Plaintiff is seeking a relief in respect of a
liability which is a fixed amount. In such a case,
suit is to be valued under Section 25(d)(i) of the
Kerala Courts Fees and Suit Valuation Act for the
amount demanded in the notice issued under revenue
recovery proceedings. But that cannot be applied
to a case where plaintiff is not a defaulter and he
is not seeking a decree restraining realisation of
the amount demanded under the revenue recovery
proceedings from the defaulter but only contended
that his property cannot be proceeded against as
it does not belong to the defaulter. In such a
case, plaintiff cannot be directed to value the
suit for the amount demanded under the revenue
recovery proceedings from the defaulter. It may be
WP(C) 17486/2008 4
that the actual market value of the property be
less than Rs.25,000/-. It is possible that the
arrears of the salestax or any other tax for
realisation of which proceedings were initiated
under the Revenue Recovery Act against the property
may exceed even five lakhs. A suit filed in such
a case by a person, who is not a defaulter and who
is not personally liable to pay the amount demanded
under the revenue recovery proceedings, seeking a
prayer that his property cannot be proceeded
against for the liability due from another, he
cannot be compelled to value the property for the
amount demanded under the revenue recovery
proceedings from the defaulter. He need only value
the suit for the value of the property as provided
under section 25(d)(i) of Kerala Courts Fees and
Suit Valuation Act. The facts of Sreekumaran’s
case (supra) shows that the prayer in the suit was
for a declaration that revenue recovery proceedings
initiated by the defendant is illegal, erroneous
and unsustainable and also for a declaration that
plaintiff has no liability to pay any amount and
the liability of the plaintiff is only to pay the
WP(C) 17486/2008 5
amount due to the second defendant upto a fixed
period. In such circumstance, the Division Bench
held that suit is to be valued for the amount
demanded under the revenue recovery proceedings, as
the amount demanded is a specified amount.
Instead, learned Munsiff should have directed to
value the plaint for the value of the property and pay
court fee accordingly. To that extent, Ext.P3 order is
modified. Petitioner is directed to value the
property on the value of the plaint schedule property
and pay court fee as provided under Section 25(d)(i) of
the Act.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-