IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5353 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/01/2009 IN IA.6107/2007 IN OS.496/2007 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RAHUL G.MENON,S/O.SREENIVASAN,AGED 17 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SREENIVASAN, S/O.MANIKANTAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEEDIKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNDANNOOR KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUDHEES,S/O.SUDHAKARAN,AGED 17 YRS, MINOR,REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,SUDHAKARAN,S/O.RAGHAVA MENON,AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEEDIKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNDANNOOR KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.O.P.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN KARTHA, S/O.RAJA RAJA VARMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,SUDHALAYAM, VAZHAKKALA SOUTH, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVEENDRAN KARTHA, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, PULIKKILLATH HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5353 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The plaintiffs in O.S.No.496 of 2007, on the file of the court of the I Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam, challenge the order dated 1st January 2009 in I.A.No.6107 of 2007 by which the court below appointed a Commissioner to assess the actual market value of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. 2. The suit was filed for injunction. The petitioners valued the suit under Section 27 (c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs. An issue regarding title was also raised. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for amendment of the plaint showing the valuation under Section 27(a) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The plaintiffs have shown Rs.1,10,000/- as the value of the property and accordingly, one half of the market value was shown as the valuation of the suit. It was objected to by the defendants. They contended that the market value of the property is much more and the correct market value of the WPC No.5353 /2009 2 property has to be fixed as per the relevant provisions of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The objections raised by the defendants were considered and the court below was pleased to appoint a Commissioner to assess the market value of the property, while disposing of the application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs were directed to take out a Commission. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. At the time when the Writ Petition came up for admission, notice was ordered making it clear that the Writ Petition was being admitted only to make sufficient clarification that the question of valuation will be decided after the Commissioner files the report and after hearing the parties. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in the order passed by the court below by which the Commissioner was appointed to assess the valuation of the property. While passing the order, the court below held that the property is situated in Vazhakkala Village and therefore, it is not believable that the market value of the plaint schedule property WPC No.5353 /2009 3 at the time of filing of suit was only Rs.1,10,000/-. The grievance of the petitioners is that the court below prejudged the issue and has prejudged the question of valuation as well. There is some force in this contention. Though there is no ground to interfere with the order appointing a Commissioner, it is to be made clear that the question of valuation will be decided after hearing both parties. All the findings and observations in the order dated 1st January 2009 in I.A.No.6107 of 2007 shall be treated as having been made only for supporting the order for appointment of a Commissioner. In other words, those observations and findings shall not be taken as final or conclusive in the matter of valuation of the suit. On the question of valuation, both parties shall be heard by the court below and appropriate orders shall be passed. The Writ Petition is allowed in part as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl