IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 953 of 2007() ------------------------------ IA. NO.4242/2007 IN OS.152/2004 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------- 1. MAPPALA RAJU, S/O. KUMARAN, RESIDING AT ELAKKADU AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PUTHUKUDI MOHANDAS, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY, RESIDING AT ELATHUR AMSOM, PUTHOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ----------------------- 1. EMBARANKANDY SYAMALA SATHYAN, D/O. KITTAN, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KALLARAM KOTTIL SATHYAN, S/O. RARICHAN, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN - R1 SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 953 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 20thday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, in IA 4242/07 in OS 152/04. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract. The sale consideration fixed for the property is Rs.19,50,000/-. In the plaint in the valuation portion it is shown as Rs.15,50,000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the payable amount is Rs.15,50,000/- and therefore it is the consideration for which the court fee has to be paid. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is against the tenure of Section 42(a) of the Court Fees Act wherein the court fee has to be paid for the consideration fixed for sale of the property. It is desirable to refer to Section 42 (a) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act which says in a suit for specific performance whether with or without possession, fee shall be payable in the case of a contract of sale computed on the amount of consideration. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties had made C.R.P. NO.953/07 2 available before me a copy of the agreement. A reference to page 3 of the agreement would reveal that there are two items of property for which consideration is fixed (i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- for item No.1 and Rs. 4,50,000/- for item No.2) and thus a total consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-. It is also recited in page 4 that in the rooms occupied by a tenant on lease in item No.1 security of Rs.4 lakhs had been received by the plaintiff and therefore the balance consideration to be paid is Rs.15,50,000/-. So a reading of the agreement would make it crystal clear that the consideration for transaction is Rs.19,50,000/-. Therefore, if Section 42(a) is to be applied, the court fee has to be paid for the said amount. A similar view is taken by this court in its decision reported in Ajaya Kumar v. Deepthi Krishnan [2006 (4) KLT 768] wherein this court held that “it is the half of this property which is agreed to be sold to the petitioner as per Ext.P1. Consequently, the computation of court fee adopted by the court below, adding this amount as well, to the liquid cash payable is justified”. 4. Therefore it has to be held that by application of Section 42 (a) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act what has to be taken into consideration for paying the court fee in a suit for specific C.R.P. NO.953/07 3 performance is the consideration mentioned for the property in the agreement and not any adjustment. 5. Therefore, I do not find any mistake committed by the court below and I confirm the decision of the court below. Since the court fee has to be paid for a further amount of Rs.4 lakhs and as time is requested for, I grant two months time to pay the court fee. I also direct the revision petitioners herein to make proper amendment to the plaint for the said purpose. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.953/07 4