IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18429 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.41/2005 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- V.P.RAJAGOPALAN, S/O. LATE MELEPARAMBOTTIL BALAGOPALAN, RESIDING AT ISWARYA, PALATHOL DESOM, ELAMKULAM AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, MR.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- COLONEL K.RAVISANKAR, S/O. KARANATH SAROJINI AMMA, MUNNURKKODE DESOM, ELEDATH MADAMBA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK BY MUKTHIAR AGENT MANI, S/O. KOLAKKADE AMMINI AMMA, PALAPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18429 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and set aside Ext.P8 order. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the court below to direct the respondent to pay proper court fee as contended in the written statement”. 2. The second defendant in O.S.No.41/2005 on the file of the sub Court, Ottappalam is the petitioner. Suit is one for declaration of title and possession with consequential injunction, and the plaintiff is the respondent. Challenge raised in the petition is against Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Sub Judge holding that the valuation shown in the plaint and the court fee paid are sufficient repelling the contentions taken thereof by the petitioner/second defendant in his written statement. Correctness and propriety of Ext.P8 order is challenged by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.18429 of 2009 - O 2 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances with reference to Ext.p8 order and the materials tendered with the petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged before me that the valuation shown in the plaint is incorrect and the court fee paid by the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed is insufficient. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint seeking the reliefs aforementioned in the suit giving rise to Ext.P8 order. On going through Ext.P1 plaint and Ext.P8 order passed by the learned sub Judge holding that the valuation shown in the plaint is correct and court fee paid sufficient, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in that order. In the valuation column, plaintiff has shown the annual income from the property as Rs.6 Lakhs, which was banked upon by the counsel that even on the own admission of plaintiff proper valuation has not been made in the plaint. Obviously annual income shown as Rs.6 Lakhs is a mistake, and the defendant cannot be permitted to take advantage of that mistake to prolong and protract the litigation. The learned Sub W.P.(C).No.18429 of 2009 - O 3 Judge has taken into account the materials collected in the commission report to conclude that the property involved in the suit is an agricultural land and it has to be valued as such, and, that the plaintiff has properly valued the suit and paid sufficient court fee. After all, the payment of court fee is a matter between the State and the plaintiff, as it relates to revenue due to the State, and the defendant in a suit has no indefeasible right to challenge the valuation made or court fee payable for the reliefs claimed in the suit. It is for the court to enter a conclusive finding after examining the materials, if at all such a challenge is made by any of the defendants to the suit, and once such a finding is made unless it is shown to be perverse, no further challenge can be permitted at the instance of a defendant as it would cause delay in adjudication of the disputes involved and disposal of the suit. A finding entered by the court with respect to valuation of the suit and court fee payable after hearing the objections of the defendant is open in a further enquiry, if so warranted under Section 18 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, by a Court Fee Examiner deputed by the High Court and also in an appeal from the decision ultimately passed in the suit if at W.P.(C).No.18429 of 2009 - O 4 all the appellate court is satisfied, that question also requires to be considered to avoid loss of revenue to the State. In the present case, the learned Sub Judge has passed Ext.P8 order after taking into consideration the relevant materials, and the defendant cannot challenge the finding arrived at contending that the court should have appointed a commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the property. It is for the court to decide whether any commissioner has to be appointed for ascertaining the market value of the property, and in the present case as the court was satisfied with the commission report already available to conclude that the suit property is an agricultural land and proper valuation has been made and court fee paid for the reliefs claimed, there was no necessity to appoint a commission to ascertain the market value of the property. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-