MINITA DAPHNE NETTO Vs. MARGET BENEDICT RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaint schedule property in O.S.Nos.1040/2002 and 1473/2004 is 4 cents of land with a building thereon (which occupies three cents). O.S.No.1040/2002 has been filed by the respondents for recovery of possession on title for which court fee is paid under Section 30 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). O.S.No.1473/2004 has been filed by the petitioners for a declaration of kudikidappu right over the property and for consequential prohibitory injunction. The court fee is paid under Section 25(b) of the Act reckoning market value of the property under Section 7(3A) of the Act.

(2.) IT is evident from the plaint in O.S.No.1473/2004 that the plaint schedule property is not the building alone but the appurtenant land also having a total extent of 4 cents. Therefore the court below cannot be faulted with in assessing the market value of the property under Section 7(3A) of the Act. The court below has pursuant to the order of remand in W.P.(C) No.1004/2009 assessed the market value on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner in this regard.

(3.) THE petitioners however point out that the plaint in O.S.No.1040/2002 filed by the respondents has been ridiculously undervalued wherein the very same property has been valued at '. 320/- only. It is open to the petitioners to file an application under Section 12(2) of the Act objecting to the valuation of the property situate adjacent to the Banerji Road in Ernakulam. Every endeavour shall be made to avoid any disparity in adopting the market value of the property for the purpose of assessing the court fee payable under the Act. The court below has all the powers to delve deep into this aspect since evidence has not been recorded on the merits of the claim hitherto.