IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3924 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.19/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- BALAN @ P.N.ANANDAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE NADASA AYYAR,VATTEKKAD RICE MILL & SAW MILL, VATTEKKADU,KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ANANDPADMANABHAN,S/O.LATE KALYANASUNDARAYYAR,RESIDING AT 7/780,KALYAN, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK 678 019. 2. P.S.PARAMESWARAN,S/O.A.N.SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT NARAYANA NIVAS,PADINJARE MADAM, MUNDATHIKODU PANCHAYATH,PARLIKADU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 623. 3. P.A.NADESA ANAND,S/O. LATE P.N.ANANDARAMAN,VATTEKKADU RICE MILL, VATTEKKADU AMSOM,KOLLENGODE,CHITTUR TALUK, 678 506. 4. HARIKRISHNAN,S/O.MEENAKSHY,VATTEKKADU KOLLEMODE VILAGE, CHITTUR TALUK 678 506. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3924 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 19/04 OF THE SUB COURT PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 15.2.2004 IN OS 19/04 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED ON 8.7.2010 BY THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE SUB COURT PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL.WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 12.7.2010. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.2011 PASSED by THE SUB COURT PALAKKAD IN OS NO.19/04. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3924 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT First defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2004 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad challenges Ext.P5, order dated 11.08.2011 in O.S.No.19 of 2004 accepting amended valuation of the suit made by respondents 1 and 2/additional plaintiffs. That is a suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of possession of the property on time. Petitioner filed written statement on 15.02.2004 contending that market value of the properties is more than `.20,00,000/- but valuation shown in the plaint is only `.10,00,000/-. In the meantime the original plaintiff died and respondents 1 and 2 came on record as additional plaintiffs. They filed application to amend the valuation as `.2,70,700/. Petitioner filed additional written statement on 12.07.2010 stating that the said valuation also is not correct. It would appear that as directed by the learned Sub Judge, respondents 1 and 2 filed statement (regarding valuation of the subject matter) on 03.06.2010 stating valuation as `.2,70,700/-. The request for amendment was allowed by the learned Sub Judge. That order is under challenge. O.P(C).No.3924 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. According to the learned counsel property should have been valued under Sec.7(3A) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, "the Act”) as property involved is other than agricultural land and building falling in sub secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.7 of the Act. Even as per the version of petitioner, of the property involved in the suit building occupies only a small portion. 3. Concededly the change of valuation even as pleaded by petitioner would not affect jurisdiction of the Court since the suit is filed in the Court of learned Sub Judge. What is alleged is only the insufficiency of valuation of subject matter which has no bearing on the jurisdictional issue. Sufficiency of valuation and court fee is a matter, so far as it does not affect jurisdiction, between the plaintiff, the court and the government. I must also bear in mind that valuation and jurisdiction are to be decided primarily based on allegations in the plaint. 4. In Lakshmi Ammal Vs. K.M.Madhavakrishnan and Ors. ((1978)4 SCC 15) the Supreme Court pointed out: “the Court should be anxious to grapple with the real issue and not spend their energies on peripheral ones. Court fee, if it seriously restricts the rights of a person to seek his O.P(C).No.3924 of 2011 -: 3 :- remedies in courts of justice, should be strictly construed, because, access to justice is the basis of the legal system and so, where there is a reasonable doubt the benefit must go to him who says that lesser court fee should be paid.” 5. I am not inclined to think that in a suit filed in the year 2004, the court below even in the year, 2011 is required to grapple with the peripheral issue of insufficiency of valuation even it has no bearing on the jurisdictional issue and further prolong trial of the case. This original petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-