IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26216 of 2007(U) -------------------------- OS.1391/2005 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 62, S/O.LATE N.K.KUMARAN, NADEPILLIL HOUSE, OPP.AYURVEDA COLLEGE, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CHANDRAN, AGED 55, S/O.DAMODARAN, KIZHAKKEDATH MADATHUM MURIYIL, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. 2. BHANUMATHY, AGED 71, W/O.GOVINDAN, KIZHAKKEDATH MADATHUM MURIYIL, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. 3. SANTHAMMA, AGED 67, W/O.P.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, KIZHAKKEDATH MADATHUM MURIYIL, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. 4. RAJAMMA, AGED 59, W/O.MADHAVAN, KIZHAKKEDATH MADATHUM MURIYIL, EROOR NORTH PO., TRIPUNITHURA. 5. MANI, AGED 57, W/O.RAMADAS, KIZHAKKEDATH MADATHUM MURIYIL, EROOR NORTH P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR R1,3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.26216 of 2007 EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1391/2005 , ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.1391/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3409 OF 2006 IN O.S.No.1391/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. To Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26216 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1391/2005, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Under Ext.P3 order, Issue No.9 was answered by the learned Munsiff in favour of the respondents- plaintiffs holding that court fee paid is sufficient. The decree sought for by the respondents subsequent to the amendment of the plaint includes a decree for redemption of mortgage deed number 976/1100 M.E. Of SRO, Thripunithura, and after declaring transactions evidenced by Document No.1668 of 1117 M.E., 1756 of 1119 M.E., 134 of 1120 M.E. and 599 of 1970 M.E. are ineffective and not binding on them, and also to declare that purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of respondent is null and void, and not binding on the respondents and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was valued for the first relief under Section 33(8) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, (for short 'the Act') and relief of injunction under Section 27(c) of the Act and also for the relief of declaration under Section 25(d)(ii) of the Act. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that plaintiffs should have paid court fee, as provided W.P.(C) No.26216/2007 2 under Section 25(d)(1) of the Act on the market value of the property and not for Rs.1000/= as has been done in this case. The learned Munsiff relying on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sankaran v. Marykutty (1986 KLT 794) found that the court fee paid is sufficient. The learned counsel argued that the said decision has no application as it was a suit for partition and in the circumstances of that case, there was no necessity to pay separate court fee for the relief of declaration that the settlement deed is invalid. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order warranting interference. The case of respondents is that purchase certificate was obtained without impleading them, and the original owners were not impleaded, it is null and void. It is in such circumstances, decree for declaration that purchase certificate is null and void was sought. In the circumstance of the case, it is not necessary to pay court fee on the market value. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE W.P.(C) No.26216/2007 3 nj.