IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 36735 of 2007(W) --------------------------------- OS.1267/2006 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------- 1. VISHAYA V.PRABHU, W/O. D.V.PRABHU, PRABHU NIVAS, KALOOR, KATHRIKADAVU ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-17. 2. V.SUJATHA PRABHU, D/O. D.V.PRABHU, 'SURYA', THOPPIL HOUSE, MULLACKAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA-11. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- SUNIL V.PRABHU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. D.VASUDEVA PRABHU, F-14, J.M.GARDENS, PALLIKARA TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 36735/2007 1 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No 36735 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam in O.S. No 1267 of 2006 on a finding on the question of the value of the property for the purpose of determining the court fee under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. The suit is one for setting aside a document. The contentions as seen raised by the defendant are that the land in question is not an agricultural land and therefore it is a property that has to be valued as per the market value of the property for which the commissioner has been appointed. It is seen that the commissioner has reported that it is not an agricultural land. Therefore the question to be decided is whether it is an agricultural land or any other land coming within the parameters of Section 7 of the Court Fees act. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that if an opportunity is given, writ petitioner will adduce evidence to show that it is an agricultural land. WPC 36735/2007 2 Since the stake involved is very high I feel that an opportunity be given to the petitioners be given an opportunity to substantiate their contentions. Needless to say, defendant has also to be given an opportunity to controvert the same. I therefore set aside the impugned order, Ext. P5, and remit the matter back to the court below for fresh consideration and the parties are permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions in the form of oral or documentary evidence. The court below shall consider the same and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN Judge 03/04/2008 en [true copy]