IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1931 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.181/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANTHAMMA, W/O LATE SADANANDAN PILLAI, AGED 62,PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KAMALANIVAS,AROOR VILLAGE, AROOR MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. V.P.VENUGOPAL, S/O.V.N.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 48, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. V.P.LATHIKA, W/O.P.S.GOPINATHAN, AGED 52,PRANAVAM, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. V.P.VALSA, W/O.V.P.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 56, PALAPPRAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI VILAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. V.P.CHANDRIKA, S/O.P.S.SWAMINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 54, MANIMANDIRAM, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. P.K.SUKUNATHAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 46,PALAPARAMBIL, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. P.K.REGHUNATHAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 44, PALAPARAMBIL, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. P.K.REMA DEVI, D/O.KARUNAKARA PILLAI, AGED 42, PADMALAYAM, AROOR VILLAGE, AROOR MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 9. P.K.SUNITHAKUMARI,D/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI AGED 39, RADHA MANDHIRAM NIVAS, NANDIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARUR, PARUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. WPC.1931/10 10. P.K.MINI, D/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 38, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERTHALA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- R.VIKRAMAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, M/S.BELL FOODS (MARINE DIVISION), PALLICHAL ROAD, KOCHI-5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.1931 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P7 after calling for the records leading thereto. ii. to direct the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi to strike down the issue as to whether the petitioners have title over the property where the plaint schedule building situates. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.315 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kochi. Suit is one for eviction and the respondent is the defendant. Ext.P7 order passed by the court below directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to correct the valuation of the suit property and pay sufficient court fee thereof within the time limit fixed is challenged in WPC.1931/10 2 the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The above suit has been laid for eviction of the respondent from a building after the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to get an order of eviction in a rent control proceedings against him. Challenge raised by the respondent in the rent control proceedings disputing the title of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the building was accepted by the Rent Control Court holding that the denial of title by the respondent is bona fide. The Rent Control Court directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to approach the civil court as contemplated under Section 11 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Pursuant thereto, the present suit was filed as one for eviction. Ext.P4 is the copy of the plaint and Ext.P5, copy of the written statement filed by WPC.1931/10 3 the respondent/defendant. Though Ext.P1 suit was filed as one for eviction, taking note of the contentions raised by the defendant in Ext.P5 written statement disputing the title of the plaintiffs and also the order passed by the Rent Control Court, the court below, among other issues, cast the issues whether the plaintiffs have title over the suit property and also whether the valuation made and court fee paid in the suit are correct. After considering the above two issues preliminarily, hearing the counsel on both sides, Ext.P7 order has been passed directing the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and pay sufficient court fee within a period of two weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioners inviting my attention to Section 43 (2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act has contented that proper court fee has been paid in the suit and Ext.P7 order passed by the court below is incorrect. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the counsel. Though petitioners have filed the suit as one for eviction as if the relationship between the parties is that of a landlord-tenant and recovery of the tenanted premises the building alone is sought for, it is to be noted that without WPC.1931/10 4 adjudication of the question of title of the plaintiffs over the building, which has been denied by the respondent, no decree can be granted in the suit. When an issue is raised on the question of title of the plaintiffs over the suit property and adjudication of that issue by the court is essential to resolve the controversy between the parties, valuation of the suit with reference to the subject matter and payment of the court fee with reference to such valuation has to be made for such adjudication. A simple suit for eviction as laid by the plaintiffs, in the given facts, for recovery of the building from the respondent, is not at all entertainable. Where the Rent Control Court has already entered a finding that the denial of title raised by the respondent/defendant is bona fide directing the plaintiffs to establish their title in the civil court for eviction of the respondent/defendant, the argument of the counsel that the valuation of the suit need be calculated with reference to the rent payable for the building and court fee need be paid as under Section 43 (2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is unworthy of any merit. When an issue regarding title has been raised by the court and its WPC.1931/10 5 adjudication is found necessary in the suit, it is not the manner in which the plaintiffs have framed the suit or claimed the relief, that is material, but, determination of the valuation of the subject matter for considering the question of title and payment of the court fee thereof as mandated by law. Challenge against Ext.P7 order is devoid of any merit, and the writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp