IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2007 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 18954 of 2004(F) -------------------------- OS.134/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- A.R.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SINDHU BHAVANAM, KARUVATTATHEKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.PANKAJAKSHY AMMA, VELLOOR HOUSE, NJAKKANAL MURI, KIZHANAPURAM VILLAGE. 2. KANAKAMMA, ASANPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. 3. VISWANATHAN NAIR, VELOOR HOUSE, NJAKKANAL MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE. 4. GEETHAKUMARI, THOMAYIL HOUSE, ANAYADI MURI, SOORANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA TALUK. 5. MEENAKSHI AMMA, ARIVANOOR CHIRAYIL HOUSE KARVATTA THEKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. 6. S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, REVATHY, NEAR POOKADA, WEST FORT, MAVELIKKARA. 7. SUBHADRAMMA, ASWATHY, KARUVATTATHEKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI for R5 to R7 SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR for R1 to R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.18954/2004 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.561/04 IN O.S.NO.134/000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/03/2004 IN I.A.NO.561/04. /TRUE COPY/ Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18954 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th June, 2007 JUDGMENT A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in this Writ Petition impugning Ext.P2 order by which the learned Munsiff has found that prayers A and B in the suit are separate prayers and they are to be valued separately. 2. Heard Mr.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Krishna Pillai, counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 3. Mr.Krishna Pillai submits that prayer B which is for a declaration that the plaintiffs title to the plaint items stands perfected by efflux of time is only ancillary or incidental to prayer A which is for a declaration that the sale which is executed in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are invalid, incompetent and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff since it will be obligatory on the part of the court to grant prayer B if prayer A is granted. In other words, the learned counsel submits that the necessity for considering prayer B will arise only in the event of a positive relief being granted as per prayer A. I find considerable force in the above submissions and have no difficulty to accept the above submissions. I set aside the impugned order and hold that prayer B in the plaint is only incidental to prayer A and no W.P.C.No.18954/04 - 2 - separate court fee is not payable on prayer B. I.A.No.561/04 will stand allowed in full. The Writ Petition will stand allowed. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE