IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2006/29TH AGRAHAYANA1928 WP(C).No. 8455 of 2004(F) ------------------------- {O.S.NO.52/2003 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR} .................... PETITIONER: ------------ NAYANTHARA MAHADEVAN, W/O. MAHADEVAN, AGED 36, DANCE TEACHER AND PROFESSIONAL DANCER RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.P.P.XV 517, PUZHATHI AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-2. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY II, KANNUR-2. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIKKUNNU. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.52 OF 2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR DATED 22.1.2003. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR IN O.S.52 OF 2003 DATED 15.1.04 DATED NIL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004 ------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006. JUDGMENT Abdul Gafoor, J. The writ petitioner attempted a suit for injunction, when the State Government sought to recover an amount by attaching the movable properties belonging to her. According to her, the amount was due from her father, who was residing with her and hence she was not disputing the liability. She resisted recovery out of her properties. The right of the defendants to recover the amount from her properties is disputed. So she was only liable in terms of the Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 {for short 'the Act'}, rather than the proviso to Section 27(c) of the Act to pay the required court fees. The trial court did not accept the contention and found that, as recovery of money is disputed, the court fee payable shall be in terms of the proviso to Section 27(c) of the Act. W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004 :: 2 :: 2. It is discerned from the impugned order Ext.P3 that the said court had relied on the decision in Kunharamu v. Kunhalankutty {2003(1)KLT 216}. There also the facts were almost similar. There, when there were revenue dues from a son, the Government proceeded against the property jointly owned by the father and son, the father instituted an injunction suit. Considering that fact frame, it was found in the said decision that such suit shall have to be valued in terms of the proviso to Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Act. Necessarily, the view taken by the court below in Ext.P3 cannot be stated to be unjustified. Hence, the writ petition fails, dismissed. Sd/- (K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004 JUDGMENT 20th December, 2006. ------------------------------------------------