IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34609 of 2008(T) -------------------------- OS.262/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.K.VANAJA, W/O LATE VISWANATHA VARMA, PADAVEETTIL HOUSE, KAVASSERY AMSOM, DESOM,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.M.RAMACHANDRA VARMA, AGED 74 YEARS,S/O.LATE A.MADHAVA MENON, PADAVEETTIL HOUSE,KAVASSERY AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY MR.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SMT.A.GOURISANKAR, W/O.LATE V.K.SANKARANKUTTY ACHAN, VALIAKONIKALIDATHIL,VETTAKARAN PUTHUR,KAMARAJ NAGAR,POLLACHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. 2. SATYANARAYANAN, S/O LATE SANKARAN KUTTY ACHAN, VALIAKONIKALIDATHIL,VETTAKKARAN PUTHUR, KAMARAJ NAGAR, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. 3. MADHAVAN, S/O LATE SANKARAN KUTTY ACHAN, VALIAKONIKALIDATHIL, VETTAKKARAN PUTHUR,KAMARAJ NAGAR, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34609/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.NO.262 OF 1998 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 9/12/1998 IN O.S.NO.262 OF 1998 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD. P3: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 9/08/2004 IN O.S.NO.262 OF 1998. P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 31/10/2008 IN WPC.NO.32035 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5: COPY OF THE EXTENSION ORDER DTD. 19/11/2008 IN WPC.NO. 32035 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1061 OF 1996 OF SRO, ALATHUR. P7: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1062 OF 1996 OF SRO, ALATHUR. P8: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1883 OF 1996 OF SRO, ALATHUR. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/11/2008 IN O.S.NO.262 OF 1998 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE (ADDL.), PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34609 OF 2008 T ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The defendant in O.S.No.262/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and propriety of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge holding that the valuation of the above suit and the court fee paid thereunder are correct. Respondent is the plaintiff. Suit is one for recovery of possession and for compensation. Among other contentions, the defendant, in her written statement, contended that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient, and, accordingly, an issue on that question was raised. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed under section 19 of the Court Fees Act to assist the court to determine the question relating to valuation made in the plaint and sufficiency of the court fee paid. The Commissioner, after conducting enquiry, filed a report stating that at the time of his inspection, the centage value of the property is Rs.25,000/- and at the time of institution it might be Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff filed objection to the report and WPC.34609/08 : 2 : in the enquiry that proceeded, plaintiff examined one witness as PW1 and got marked three documents, which according to him, reflected the market value of the property in the surrounding areas at the institution of the suit. On the side of the defendant, no oral evidence was adduced but two documents were exhibited to substantiate her contention that centage value of the property was much higher than that was shown in the plaint. Commissioner’s report was also exhibited in evidence. The learned Sub Court, after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides with reference to the legal principles applicable, came to the conclusion that the suit has been properly valued and court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. Ext.P9 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P9 order is impeached by the defendant invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. A proper adjudication in accordance with the governing legal principles was not done by the learned Munsiff in passing Ext.P9 order is the challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to WPC.34609/08 : 3 : impeach the correctness of that order. The report of the Commissioner stating that the market value per cent of the property might be Rs.10,000/-, at the time of institution of suit, which conclusion was formed by him after due enquiry, was discarded by the learned Munsiff without justifiable cause, is the submission of the counsel. It is further submitted that the documents produced by the defendant, B1 and B2, were also not properly appreciated and that has led to forming wrong conclusion resulting in manifestation of injustice. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff contended that it was after a thorough and proper enquiry and examination of the materials produced the court has formed the conclusion under Ext.P9 order that the valuation made by the plaintiff is proper and correct and the court fee paid is sufficient and unimpeachable. Learned counsel further submitted that valuing the property at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent the suit was laid in the year 1998 describing the suit property as having an extent of 68 cents. But later after a measurement of the property was taken it was revealed the extent is much less and the schedule was amended WPC.34609/08 : 4 : to show the actual extent, which is confined to 41.9 cents. So, on the valuation made by the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit the centage value of the property, as scheduled at present, comes to Rs.3,125/-. It is further submitted that the documents produced by the plaintiff as A1 to A3 which related to transactions at or about the time of the institution of the suit would show that the centage value was between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3000/- in the surrounding areas. The two documents produced by the defendant as B1 and B2, it is submitted by the counsel, related to small commercial plots situate in the town and it was so found by the learned Munsiff also. The Commissioner’s report in which the assessment of the market value of the property was stated on the basis of mere surmises, according to the counsel, was rightly rejected. The learned counsel contended that there is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Munsiff and it does not call for any interference invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this court. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel with reference to the materials tendered and Ext.P9 order, I find WPC.34609/08 : 5 : proper and correct adjudication had been made by the court below in arriving at the conclusion that the suit has been properly valued and sufficient court fee paid. The court is not bound to place implicit reliance on the Commission report as it can be seen from Section 19 of the Court Fees Act that in the course of the enquiry, it may appoint a Commission to file a report to enable and assist the court in assessing the value of the property to have correct valuation of the suit and also to determine the sufficiency of the court fee for reliefs claimed. A perusal of the Commission report would show that the assessment made by the Commissioner that at present the property is having a value of Rs.25,000/-, which is stated to be based on the enquiries conducted on the Village Officer, is not supported by any data. Similarly, he would state that after enquiry with a timber merchant it was known at the time of institution the property had a market value of Rs.10,000/- per cent. To say the least the opinion so given by the Commissioner is totally irrelevant and does not in any way assist the court in considering the question of valuation and also sufficiency of court fee. I do not find any merit in the challenge raised that an improper WPC.34609/08 : 6 : adjudication was made by the learned Sub Judge in passing Ext.P9 oder. Plaintiff has examined one witness in the enquiry and his evidence show that the centage value of the suit property at the time of institution was Rs.2,000/-. His testimony remains unimpeached, and further supported by the documentary evidence tendered by the plaintiff as A1 to A3. The circumstance canvassed by the counsel that by reduction of the extent of the property, which was originally shown as 68 cents, and at present only 41.97 cents is also indicative that the valuation made in the plaint could not be impeached. In fact, the plaintiff has paid court fee, if it is examined with reference to the extent of the property, at the value of Rs.3,125/- per cent. I do not find any reason in the given facts of the case to interfere with Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. Writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks