IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17115 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.752/2008 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.NINA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 60, KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, BEHIND KALAMASSERY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-33, VATEKKUNNAM KARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, MR.P.VISWANATHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PIUS, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 65, ENGINEER, RESIDING AT VYPPANAYIL HOUSE, THEKKUM MURI KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.N.USMAN, KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, CALICUT ROAD, PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.N.SHERIFF, KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, OPPOSITE GOVT. POLITECHNIC, ANGADIPURAM, PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T First defendant in O.S.No.752/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and for injunction. First respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents, 2 and 3, are co- defendants with the petitioner in the suit. Petitioner/defendant has challenged the valuation of the suit shown in the plaint. Plaintiff has shown a valuation of Rs.90,000/- in respect of the plaint property having an extent of 16.860 cents of land which, according to him, is a paddy land. Disputing that it is not an agricultural land, the defendant wanted to value that property as under Section 7(3)(A) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Learned Munsiff, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner, found no merit in the objections, and passed Ext.P3 order negativing them. Impeaching the correctness and legality of Ext.P3 order, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the question posed for consideration and perusing Ext.P3 order I find no notice is necessary to respondents, and hence it is dispensed with. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his challenge is confined only with respect to the valuation of the suit for the relief claimed in respect of the fixation of the boundary and not for the relief of decree for injunction. So much so, that question alone requires to be looked into to examine the correctness of Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff. It is the submission of the learned counsel that since fixed court fee as under Section 50 of the Act is governing a suit claiming a relief of fixation of boundary, valuation of the suit must be in accordance with clause (ii) of Section 53 of the Act. According to the learned counsel such valuation must reflect the market value as covered by Section 7 of the Act. I cannot agree. Section 7(2) of the Act enumerates the Sections of the Act to which the mode prescribed thereunder applies where property covered by the suit or proceedings is an agricultural land. Section 7(3) of the Act deals W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2009 - O 3 with a case where the subject matter is a building and Section 7 (3)(A) of the Act with cases which are not covered by Section 7 (2) and Section 7(3). But, before examining the question whether any of these subsections of Section 7 is applicable to the present case, the provisions under clause (2) of Section 53 which is stated to be applicable to the present case has to be noticed. Admittedly, a suit for fixation of boundary comes within the realms of a suit for which no mode or regulation is given by the Act for fixation of its valuation. Further a fixed court fee is also fixed for claiming that relief under Section 50 of the Act. Clause (2) of Section 53 reads thus: “ In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.” If the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction is possible by having an estimated money value, as per the Section, it shall be the market value, and if such estimate in terms of money value is not possible then the valuation shown by the plaintiff in the plaint has to be accepted, is the sum and W.P.(C).No.17115 of 2009 - O 4 substance of that subsection. The relief claimed in the suit is fixation of boundary, for which a valuation in terms of money cannot be considered and a fixed rate is fixed by the court. Over a narrow strip of land adjoining the property of the petitioner/defendant, the plaintiff has sought for fixing the boundary. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, that value of the land as a whole has to be taken even if the boundary is negligible, then, the plaintiff who seeks such a relief will be burdened with liability to pay exhorbitant court fee. That is not the spirit of subsection (2) of Section 53. As rightly pointed out by the learned Munsiff, in a suit for fixation of boundary, where the relief is confined to a narrow strip of land, which is incapable of estimation, the amount shown by the plaintiff has to be accepted. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the court below. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-