IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2873 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ OS.92/2011 OF III ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S): ---------------------- C.P.JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.PERU, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD P.O., KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682506. BY ADV. SRI.JOLLY JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SASIKALA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.THEKKEKOYIKKAL VERASENA SHETTY, RESIDING AT 'VINAYAK', CC.XXXIII/1297, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, VADUTHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682023. 2. P.P.VISHUDAS, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VISHNU SHETTY PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT 'VINAYAK', CC.XXXIII/1297, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, VADUTHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682023. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD OPC NO. 2873/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 92/2011. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, IA NO.1541/2011. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFIED VALUATION STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM. RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2873 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P5, order passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Ernakulam on I.A.No.1541 of 2011 in O.S.No.92 of 2011 directing petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit and to assess the market value of plaint C schedule at an amount not less than `3,00,000/- per Are and pay court fee accordingly is under challenge. 2. The suit is for declaration of title, fixation of boundary, possession and injunction. Plaint C schedule with respect to which Ext.P5, order is passed is 6.350 cents in re-survey No.48/2. The question is whether the said plot is an agricultural land or residential plot and a decision on that question would determine whether for the purpose of valuation and court fee it is Sub-section (1) or (3A) of Section 7 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, “the Act”) that would apply. 3. The expression 'agricultural land' is not defined in the Act. But the expression connotes land pertaining to or connected with agriculture. It means an open land which either cultivated or which is fit for cultivation. It is the inherent quality of the land which is to be taken into account. Plaint C schedule as described in Ext.P4, is 6.350 cents. That includes a pond extending to about 1.500 cents. It is reported that there are four coconut trees in the property and OP(C)No.2873/2011 2 two of them were cut and removed by petitioner and the other two are spoiled in lightning. Admittedly there is no building in plaint C schedule but it abuts a public road. No doubt for the mere reason that the property abuts a public road it cannot be said that it is not an agricultural land. But as the Advocate Commissioner has noted, there is no improvements in the property. On the otherhand, respondents have produced notification (Ext.A1) concerning the property comprised in re-survey No.48/2 (in which plaint C schedule is also comprised) where the land has been considered as residential plot for fixation of fair value under Section 28A of the Stamp Act. Ext.P4, report is not sufficient to displace Ext.A1 produced in the court below to show that the property comprised in re-survey No.48/2 has been considered as residential plot and fair value fixed was accordingly. In the light of that, the plot cannot be treated as agricultural land. In that view of the matter learned Sub Judge is right in directing valuation of the property under Section 7(3A) of the Act and as amended provision say, the value shall not be less than the value fixed under Sec.28A of the Stamp Act. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks