IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 588 of 2010(O) OS.NO.115/2008 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,MANNARKAD PETITIONER -------------------- M.K.MAYIN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAYAMU, MANNAROTTIL, PAYYANEDAM DESOM AND VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BEEKUTTY UMMA, W/O. KALAPPARAMBAN HAMZA, KODATHIPADI, PERIMBADARI DESOM, MANNARKKAD NO.1 VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK-678 762. 2. HAMZA, S/O. KALAPARAMBAN KUNHUMUHAMMED, KODATHIPADI, PERIMBADARI DESOM, MANNARKKAD NO.1 VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK- 678 762. 3. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.KALAPPARAMBAN HAMZA, KODATHIPADI, PERIMBADARI DESOM, MANNARKKAD NO.1 VILLGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK- 678 762. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RE BY ADV.SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.NO.115 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKKAD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.115 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKKAD. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.115 OF 2008. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS AGAINST COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.115 OF 2008. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION I.A.NO.494 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.115 OF 2008. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT PETITION I.A.NO.94 OF 2010 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2010 IN I.A.NO.494 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.115 OF 2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 588 OF 2010 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order dated 18.10.2010 in I.A.No.494 of 2010 in O.S.No.115 of 2008, by which, the court below dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit was valued at `75,000/-. In the plaint, it is not stated how the valuation of `75,000/- was arrived at. The petitioner stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the annual net profit from the plaint schedule property would be `25,000/-. He claimed mesne profits at that rate. The defendants stated in the written statement that the annual net profit from the property would be only `1,000/-. On the application of the plaintiff, a Commissioner was appointed to assess the income from the property. The Commissioner stated in the report that the annual gross profit from the property would be `39,600/- and the annual net profit would be `29,600/-. O.P.(C) NO.588 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.494 of 2010 to amend the plaint so as to amend paragraph 8 of the plaint to reduce the annual net profit from `25,000/- to `7,500/-. Amendment was sought to amend the relief by reducing the claim for mesne profits to `7,500/- instead of `25,000/-. The valuation portion is not sought to be amended and it remains as `75,000/-. The court below, by the order impugned in this Original Petition, dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the application is the result of an afterthought by the plaintiff. 4. A suit for recovery of possession is to be valued under Section 30 read with Section 7 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Section 30 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act provides that in a suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on `1,000/-, whichever is higher. Under Section 7(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, market value of agricultural land shall be deemed to be ten times the annual gross profits. The petitioner/plaintiff has not stated what is the gross profit. Even if `7,500/- is taken as the net profit, the gross O.P.(C) NO.588 OF 2010 :: 3 :: profit would be higher, in which case, valuation as shown in the plaint would not be correct. It would appear that the attempt of the plaintiff is to get the valuation reduced so that the suit would be maintainable before the Munsiff's Court. The court below was justified in dismissing the application. No grounds are made out for interference. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/