IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27472 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.844/2007 of I ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ANANTHAPURI POLYMERS PVT. LTD,MP 111/29, MARANALLOOR,PONGUMMOODU,KOOVALASSERY P.O, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,K.VASANTHA KUMARI. 2. K.K.VISWANATHAN PILLAI,S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ASHIYANA,TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD, SREEKARIYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CHAIRMAN,ANANTHAPURI POLYMERS PVT.LTD. 3. K.VASANTHA KUMARI,W/O.S.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SMRITHI,TC 22/297,NO.47, SWATHI NAGAR,IIND STREET,PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KIRAN KUMAR R,S/O.S.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT -DO- 5. S.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR @ S.RAVINDRANATH, S/O.K.P.S.NAIR,RESIDING AT -DO-..DO... BY ADV. MR.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. S.VELAYUDHAN,S/O.SIVARAMAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT TC XXI/1897,SITHARA, ELANKOM ROAD,NEDUMCAUD,KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. R.PREETHA,W/O.S.VELAYUDHAN,REISIDNG AT -DO-..DO... Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.27472/2009 O 3. A.AYYAPPAN PILLAI,RESIDING AT TC 38/1874,GOMATHY VILAS,CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. R.VINAYAKUMAR MENON,S/O.K.RADHAKRISHNA MENON,RESIDING AT CHITTALUR PUTHEN VEEDU, NO.4, C.P NAGAR,MUTTADA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.RADHAKRISHNA MENON,RESIDING AT -DO-..DO... 6. MEENA VINAYAKUMAR,W/O.VINAYAKUMAR MENON, RESIDING AT -DO-..DO.... 7. K.P.SIVAKUMAR,RESIDING AT TC 35/2544, ANANDA BHAVAN,THIRUMALA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. B.JAYACHANDRAN NAIR,S/O.P.K.BHASKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT TC 41/1622,PLOT NO.12, SREE NAGAR,MANACAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. R.SUNDAR,S/O.RATHINAVEL,RESIDING AT SEETHA BUILDINGS,TC 50/1239,THALIYAL, KALADI,MANACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. THE STATE OF KERALA,RERESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R9 BY ADVS. MR.RAM MOHAN.G., MR.G.P.SHINOD. R10 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27472/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 18/11/2007 IN O.S.NO.844/07 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. P2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1308/07 DTD. 25/10/2007. P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED (IN OCTOBER 2008) BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6/04/2009 IN O.S.NO.884/07 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ` N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27472 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) Declare that sufficient court fee as contemplated by law has been paid by the petitioners in O.S No.844/2007 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No.844 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit is one for declaration, setting aside of document and permanent prohibitory injunction. Among the reliefs canvassed in the suit, plaintiffs sought for setting aside a registered document in respect of plaint 'E' schedule having an extent of 1.24 acres of land which was alleged to have been created by the 9th defendant without authority. Court fee in respect of that relief canvassed was calculated and paid with reference to the market value of that property under Section 7(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit W.P.(C).No.27472 OF 2009 Page numbers Valuation Act 1960, hereinafter referred to as Court Fees Act. The defendants, among other contentions in their written statement, challenged the valuation of the suit and also the court fee paid on the reliefs canvassed in the suit. On the basis of the contentions raised by the defendants, the question of court fee and also whether the suit has been properly valued were also cast among other issues settled for trial. The above two issues were considered primarily by the learned Munsiff and after hearing both sides, Ext.P4 order was passed holding that the relief canvassed by the plaintiff for setting aside the document created in respect of plaint 'E' schedule was grossly undervalued and that the suit was also not properly valued. Plaintiff was directed to pay the court fee for the actual value of the property and also correct the valuation of the suit. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that other than what is provided under Section 7(2) of the Court Fees Act in respect of the property to be valued, fixation of different types of land on W.P.(C).No.27472 OF 2009 Page numbers the basis of the market value, there is no other provision in the Court Fees Act enabling the party to fix the value of a property for the purpose of valuing the same under the Act. Inviting my attention to “Pachayammal v Dwaraswami Pillai” (2006(3) KLT 527), learned counsel submitted that the above decision rendered by the division bench of this court warrants a second look as the applicability of Section 7(2) of the Court Fees Act in the matter of determination of market value for the purpose of court fee has not been considered in that decision with respect to Section 40 of the Court Fees Act and so much so, the question canvassed in the present writ petition has to be referred for a determination by a larger bench of this court. I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel. In “Pachayammal v Dwaraswami Pillai” (2006(3) KLT 527), the question directly and substantially involved was whether in the suit for cancellation of deeds or other document which operates to create, assign, limit or extinguish any right or title in respect of immovable property as covered by Section 40 of the Court Fees Act what should be the mode of valuation for determination of the court fee. Whether it should be under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act which provides for determination of the market value with reference to the type W.P.(C).No.27472 OF 2009 Page numbers of land whether it is agricultural land, nonagricultural land or building or whether it should be on the value of the property as on the date of the suit otherwise than of market value covered by Section 7 of the Court Fees Act arose for adjudication in the above case, and this court conclusively expressed a view that in a suit for cancellation of a decree or property having money value or other document which purports or operates to create, assign, limit or extinguish any right or title over such property, such a suit has to be valued with reference to its value as on the date of filing of the suit and Section 7 has no application to such suits. There is no ambiguity or doubt in the opinion conclusively expressed by the court as aforesaid in the above decision. There is no merit in the request made for a reference on the question canvassed which has been concluded by the Division bench of this court in “Pachayammal v Dwaraswami Pillai” (2006(3) KLT 527). I find no merit in the challenge raised against Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE