IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27221 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.50/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY ..................................................................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KARAPPAI CHETTICHIYAR, AGED 80, D/O.VELLAKUTTY CHETTIAR, KUNDAMPANANGAT HOUSE, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. DEVAYANI, D/O. KARAPPAI CHETTICHIYAR, KUNDAMPANANGAT, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: -------------------- SREEDHARAN, S/O.KARIMPANAKKAL RAMAN EZHUTHACHAN, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, POST – 680 001. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO. 27221 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.50/2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Wadakkanchery are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P5, order allowing Ext.P3, application for amendment of the plaint as regards market value of the property sought to be recovered. Respondent/plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the suit property - 1.98 acres and residential building thereon on the strength of his title and relief (a) for a decree for recovery of possession was valued at Rs.1,000/- while relief (b) for a decree for injunction was valued at Rs.500/-. Respondent paid court fee for the aggregate value of Rs.1,500/-. Petitioners filed Ext.P2, written statement contending that sale deed No.1262/2000 in favour of respondent is null and void and made a counter claim for cancellation of that sale deed. The declaratory relief in the counter claim was valued at Rs.80,000/- being market value of the property. Court fee of its one half was paid under Section 40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act(for short “the Act”). Later, respondent filed I.A.226/2010 for W.P(C).NO. 27221 OF 2010 2 amendment of the plaint as per which the valuation for relief(a) was brought up to Rs.80,000/-. Then respondent filed Ext.P3, application, also for amendment of valuation portion of the plaint. Respondent wanted to state that market value of the building is Rs.75,000/- while the annual gross profits from the land is Rs.5,00/- and accordingly, its market value was to be fixed at Rs.5,000/- and thus the aggregate market value at Rs.80,000/-. That application, rejecting the objection of petitioners was allowed as Ext.P5, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel states that valuation of the land made by the respondents is not correct and that it is difficult to believe that the annual gross profits, from 1.98 acres is only Rs.500/-. It is also contended by learned counsel that a statement as required under Section 10 of the Act was not presented along with the plaint or later. 2. True, if the objection raised by petitioner is accepted that may affect jurisdiction of learned Munsiff to entertain the suit. But, an enquiry as to the correctness of the claim sought to be incorporated by amendment was not required before the amendment itself was allowed. Those are matters which petitioners can urge in their additional written statement to the amended plaint. This Court W.P(C).NO. 27221 OF 2010 3 has held so in Aravindakshan v Balakrishna Menon (2009 (3) KLT 105). As such learned Munsiff is justified in not going for an enquiry as to the market value of the property before Ext.P3, application was allowed. In that view of the matter I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order . But, I make it clear that if petitioners dispute assessment of market value as incorporated by amendment of the plaint it is open to them to do so in the additional written statement which they may file in answer to the amended plaint and if any such contention is raised it is for the learned Munsiff to decide whether as required under Section 19 of the Act, an enquiry is warranted. With the above observations this writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm