IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 19509 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ OS.756/2005 OF II ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. J.MOHANDAS, T.C.15/584, UDARASIRONMANI ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANANDAMAYI, W/O.J.MOHANDAS, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SEENA AJITH, W/O.AJITH KUMAR, AMBUJALAY AM, MUTTADA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.19509 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendants in O.S. No.756 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P6, order holding that valuation of property and court fee paid by the respondent-plaintiff is in accordance with Section 25(b) read with Sec.7 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, “the Act”). Contention of petitioners is that respondent is liable to show market value of the property at Rs.1,10,000/- and pay court fee accordingly. That contention has been rejected by learned Munsiff. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the land in question is not agricultural land and hence valuation made by respondent and accepted by the court court below is not correct. 2. Respondent sought declaration of her title and possession of the suit property and consequential injunction against petitioners trespassing into that property. In paragraph 13 of the plaint (Ext.P1) she valued prayer for declaration of title and possession at Rs.2,000/- under Sec.25(b) of the Act assessing W.P(C) No.19509 of 2010 -: 2 :- market value under Sec.7 of the Act. No separate court fee has been paid for the relief for injunction since it is ancillary to the relief of declaration of title and possession. Relief “C” in the plaint, alternative prayer for recovery of possession in case property is found to be in the possession of petitioners is valued at Rs.5,000/- under Sec.50 of the Act. 3. Challenge is to the valuation for the purpose of payment of court fee for relief “A”. Contention is that respondent was bound to pay court fee for the market value of the property, i.e., for Rs.1,10,000/-. I am afraid that argument cannot be accepted. For, under Sec.25(b) of the Act where a relief of declaration of title and possession is involved court fee is payable on the market value of property as assessed in the plaint. Market value of the property is to be assessed in accordance with Sec.7 of the Act. Dispute arose whether the land in question (around 2.721 cents) is agricultural or commercial plot. Court below observed that in the written statement filed by petitioners there is no contention that the land question is not agricultural land. The Advocate Commissioner deputed from the court below stated that the said property takes in yielding coconut trees. In the plaint schedule what is stated is that the property is having W.P(C) No.19509 of 2010 -: 3 :- an extent of 2.721 cents with improvements therein, a compound wall and a gate. There is no case that suit property takes in any building and going by the description in the plaint schedule it does not show that there is any building in the property. If that be so court below is correct in holding that the valuation made by respondent is proper. I must also bear in mind that payment of court fee is a matter between respondent and court. So far as there is no illegality committed by the court below petitioners shall not be permitted to contend that the land in question is not agricultural land and respondent has to show market value of the property at Rs.1,10,000/- and pay court fee accordingly. In the circumstances I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv