IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24704 of 2003(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. A.VIJAYAMMA, RESIDINGATT.C.29/808, PUNNAPURAM MURI,VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJESWARI @ MOLI, D/O.VIJAYAMMA, -DO- -DO- 3. K.V. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 27 OF -DO- -DO- 4. K.V. BINDHU, D/O. VIJAYAMMA, AGED 25 OF -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT ------------------- RETNAMMA, D/O.CHELLAMMA, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASTHISTAPICHA VEEDU, PALLIYADAKKUMUKKU, PUNNAPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.24704/2003 ORDER ON I.A.NO.16177/08 IN WP(C).NO.24704/03 ---------------------- DISMISSED 17/9/2010 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/11/1996 OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF'S (RENT CONTROL) COURT, TRIVANDRUM IN O.S.620/81. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 30/5/1997 OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF (RENT CONTROL) COURT, TRIVANDRUM IN O.S.NO.620/81. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/6/1997 OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF (RENT CONTROL) COURT, TRIVANDRUM IN O.S.NO.620/81. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 1/7/2003 IN CMA.NO.8/98 BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM. HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 24704 OF 2003 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE DAY 17TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendant No.2 and additional defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.620/81 on the file of the additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order dated lst July, 2003 passed by the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in CMA.No.8/98. The suit was originally filed for a declaration of plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff alleged that during the pendency of the suit the defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule property and constructed a building. Therefore, the plaint was amended incorporating the prayer for recovery of the plaint schedule property after removing the building alleged to have been unauthorisedly constructed by the defendants. After amendment of -2- WP(C).No.24704/2003 the plaint, the additional defendants contended that the plaint schedule property with the building constructed therein would fetch a market value of more than Rs.5 lakhs and therefore the suit is not maintainabile in the Munsiff's Court. In view of the contention raised by the additional defendants in the additional written statement, the learned Munsiff by order dated 5/6/97 ordered to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting the same before the proper court. Plaintiff challenged the said order in CMA.No.8/98. The learned Judge in Ext.P4 observed that it is a settled law that the market value of the property as on the date of the suit is the criterion for valuing the suit. The court below fixed the market value of the land at Rs.15,000/-. After amendment of the plaint the court below re-fixed the market value of the land at 15,000/- and the market value of the building at Rs.31,790/-. The learned Judge took the view that since the building was not in existence as on the date of the suit, the market value of the building should not have been taken into consideration by the court below to fix the -3- WP(C).No.24704/2003 valuation of the suit. The learned Judge also noted the fact that the plaintiff does not claim any right over the said building. In fact the amendment was for a direction to the defendants to remove the building alleged to have been put up unauthorisedly. The court below after considering all the aspects touching the merits of the case as on the date of the order, rightly held that the market value as on the date the suit ought to have been taken into consideration to fix the valuation of the suit. The court below also observed that the trial court failed to appreciate the aspect that the raising of the market value of the subject matter during the pendency of the suit by the act of one of the parties shall not be taken into consideration for deciding the valuation of the suit, since the valuation of the suit shall be based on the market value of the subject matter as on the date of filing the suit. In the circumstances, the learned Judge held that Exts.P1 to P3 orders passed by the court below do not laid down the correct principles of law and therefore the said orders are set aside. -4- WP(C).No.24704/2003 In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated in detail in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment (Ext.P4) was passed in accordance with law. This Court finds that the petitioners have not made out any valid grounds to interfere with Ext.P4 judgment in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and they are not entitled to any reliefs. It is made clear that the findings entered by the learned Judge in Ext.P4 judgment are for the purpose of deciding the question of valuation. The Munsiff's Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law untrammelled by any of the observations and findings entered by both the courts below in Exts.P1 to P4 orders. Writ Petition is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.