IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 28852 of 2007(I) ------------------------------------- O.S.435/2007 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- N.K.REGHUVARAN, AGED 58,S/O.LATE KESAVAN , TEE VEE ELECTRONICS, THIRUVAMKULAM JUNCTION,THIRUVAMAKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, ADV. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. N.K.MURALI, AGED 49,S/O. LATE KESAVAN, NEDUVELIL HOUSE, KARINGACHIRA, IRUMBANAM P.O. 2. MRS.SANTHA REGHUVARAN, AGED 50 EYARS, W/O.N.K.REGHUVARAN,TEE VEE ELECTRONICS THIRUVAMKULAM JUNCTION,THIRUVAMKULAM P.O. 3. RAJESH, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.REGHUVARAN, TEE VEE ELECTRONICS , THIRUVAMKULAM JUNCTION,THIRUVAMKULAM P.O. *4. N.K.RAMESAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MILMA BOOTH,CHATHIRI P.O. TRIPUNITHURA. *5. MRS.SATHI RAMESAN, AGED 48 YEARS, MILMA BOOTH,CHATHIRI P.O. TRIPUNITHURA. (DECEASED). *4TH RESPONDENT RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. W.P.(C). NO.28852/2007-I: *ADDL.R6. N.R. REMITHA, AGED 28, W/O. A.M. SAJI, AKKAPADATH HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM.P.O. *ADDL.R7. N.R. REJITHA, AGED 23, W/O. K.V. SHAJI , KOLARELIPADATH HOUSE, NORTH VYMEETHY, EROOR.P.O. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS AND THEY ARE RECORDED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.5 AS PER ORDER DATED19/02/08 IN I.A. NO. 20/2008. R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARUN, R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28852/2007-I: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 435/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO 435/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/08/2007 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 435/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 28852 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the findings on issue No.8 and 10 in O.S.435/07 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam. The suit is one for recovery of possession filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act valuing the suit under Section 29 of the Court Fees Act. The brief facts necessary are that the property belonged to Kesavan. He is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. He has also another son namely Remesan and two other daughters. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Kesevan has executed a Will and on his death he has become the absolute owner in possession of the property and on 8.2.07 there was a trespass with respect to a portion of the property and therefore he has instituted the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. W.P.C 28852 OF 2007 -:2:- 2. On the contra the defendants would contend that the contention that a Will has been executed was not true. The plaintiff is only a co-owner of the property and therefore a suit of this nature will not lie. 3. The Court below considered it and found it in favour of the plaintiff. I am not going deep into the subject matter for the reason that expression on the entire facts may affect the final result of the matter. In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act only points that are to be answered are, (1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property? (2) Within six months previous to the institution of the suit? (3) Whether he has been deprived of possession by the defendant and (4) Otherwise than in due course of law? 4. Now, the specific contention of the plaintiff in the case is that after the death of his father he has been in W.P.C 28852 OF 2007 -:3:- exclusive possession of the property. It is true that he claims that property under a Will. But the validity, genuineness or otherwise of the Will is not to be considered under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. What is to be considered by the Court is only whether the plaintiff had exclusive possession of the premises on the date of dispossession and if the answer is in favour of the plaintiff he is entitled to the decree and if not he is out. But these are all matters which the Court at the trial stage has to consider about which I need not make any mention in this order. Therefore the suit is maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 5. The second issue is on payment of Court fee. The plaintiff has valued the subject matter of the property at Rs.30,000/- and has valued it at 1/3rd of the value as contemplated under Section 29. Except for a vague assertion there is nothing forthcoming from the side of the defendants even to suggest value of the property. Further the question of Court fee is a matter between the Court and W.P.C 28852 OF 2007 -:4:- the plaintiff. So on that point also I do not want to protract the trial of the case. Therefore I dismiss the writ petition making it very clear that the point to be decided in this case is only with respect to the possession of the plaintiff and his dispossession within a period of six months and nothing else. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-