IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16007 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.230/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SEBASTIAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. EASY, KOLLASERY VEETTIL, H.NO.20/1476 B, KONAM, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE, S/O. MEENGU, AGED 37 YEARS, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, M.A.MATHEW ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 2. MEENGU, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, M.A.MATHEW ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 3. KOCHU THRESIYA, D/O. MEENGU, AGED 41 YEARS, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, M.A.MATHEW ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.K.L.JOSEPH, SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16007 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.230/2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court I, Kochi, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff to take out a commission to assess the market value of the plaint schedule property, which is stated to be having an extent of 5.5 cents comprising a building, on the basis of a contention raised by the defendants in their written statement that the valuation of the property shown in the plaint is insufficient. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff, the order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. A copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. It shows that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and two schedules are involved, A schedule property having an extent of 3 cents and B schedule 5.5 cents comprising a building. I shall first refer to the W.P.(C).No.16007 of 2009 - O 2 question of valuation of B schedule building and then examine the other, A schedule. Whatever be the value shown by the plaintiff with respect to plaint 'B' schedule property, the learned Munsiff has not adverted to the mode of valuation to be followed for assessing the value of that property, with respect to the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is evident that the value of B property scheduled in the plaint, comprising a building, should have been assessed under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is the case of the plaintiff that the building will fetch a rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. Whatever that be, Section 7(3) of the Act contemplates, how the valuation of the building has to be assessed for the purpose of fixing court fee in respect of that building. Accepting the contention raised by the defendants, the value of 'B' schedule property is over Rs.35 Lakhs the learned Munsiff has directed the plaintiff to take out a commission. By no stretch of imagination, the reasoning given in the order can be considered as legally proper and correct. Similar is the case of valuation of 'A' schedule of property. The question whether 'A' schedule is an W.P.(C).No.16007 of 2009 - O 3 agricultural land or not and which subsection of Section 7 of the Act is applicable for fixing its valuation has not been examined and considered. The plaintiff is directed to file a valuation statement, as contemplated by the Act and Rules, in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule. So far as the building 'B' schedule, valuation has to be made with reference to the tax levied for it, which, admittedly, is situate within the corporation. I make it clear that having regard to the extent of the property B schedule, comprising the building, which, according to the plaintiff is capable of fetching a rent of Rs.5,000/- per month, the valuation of that property has to be fixed under Section 7(3) of the Act, treating the land adjoining the building as appurtenant to it. Further valuation of the building has to be assessed not on the rental value shown by the plaintiff but with reference to the 'rental value' entered in the register of the local authority, as spelt out by subsection (3) of Section 7 of the Act. In respect of A schedule, the plaintiff shall file a statement valuing that property with reference to the subsection of Section 7, which is applicable to that property. On filing of statement by the W.P.(C).No.16007 of 2009 - O 4 plaintiff showing the valuation of 'A' and 'B' schedule the court below shall consider whether the valuation so fixed is sufficient and proper, and pass appropriate orders. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-