IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 629 of 2008(Y) ------------------------ OS.155/2006 of M.C.,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.S.SANDHYA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, KURUMTHOTTICKAL BUILDING, ST.THOMAS ROAD, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE RESPONDENT: ---------------- KUTTIYAMMA, AGED 82 YEARS, D/O.NALLON, CHEMPIKARA, VALLIPURAYIDATHIL, VANCHITHARA MURI, KOZHENCHERRY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 629 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the defendants in the suit against the order of preliminary issue regarding the Court fee. The suit is one for a declaration and consequential injunction filed under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The plaintiff claims the right of ¼ share in plaint items 1 to 4 of the properties. The Court below held that the market value of the plaint schedule property estimated by the plaintiff is not on the basis of any legal provisions and considered the matter in the entirety and held that the plaintiff is bound to calculate the market value of the property under Section 7(2), 3 or 3(A) of the provisions, as the case may be, amend the plaint and pay Court fee. The Court also observed that if the market value of the property is given it can also be considered. Since the prayer is under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, W.P.C 629 OF 2008 -:2:- market value of the property has to be estimated either under Section 7(2), 3 or 3(A) of the Act. When such an assessment is made by the plaintiff and the plaint is amended certainly it may not end the right of the defendant therein to challenge the same therein. Even after the amendment and assessment of valuation by the plaintiff, the defendant in the form of additional written statement can raise objections regarding correctness of the same. Therefore, reserving the right of the defendants to challenge the correctness of the valuation and payment of Court fee in the form of additional written statement, the writ petition is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-