USMAN KURIKKAL Vs. PARAPPUR ACHUTHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should a non-executant suing for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind his share pay advalorem court fee on the consideration stated therein The answer emerges from the following discussion. The suit is one for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff continues to be a Director in the Board of Management (the 'Board' for short) of a school. A decree of declaration that the sale deed executed by the Board in favour of the first defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiff is also sought. There is a prayer for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiff as Director or injuring his rights in any manner. The plaintiff valued the relief at Rs. 1000/- and paid court fee ofRs. 40/- under S. 25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only).

(2.) The assignee first defendant contended that the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation and court fee shall be computed on the market value of the property. It was pointed out that the sale deed executed by the Board in favour of the first defendant reflects a sale consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. It was asserted that the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation and court fee has to be computed on the market value of Rs. 4 lakhs. The first defendant in short maintained that court fee has to be paid under S. 25(d)(i) and not under S. 25(d)(ii) of the Act as was done.

(3.) The court below by the order impugned overruled the objection of the first defendant and held that the subject matter of the suit is not capable of valuation. The court below further found that the court fee computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint was proper. The finding of the court below is challenged by the first defendant in this Original Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Mr. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Satheesan, Advocate on behalf of the respondent in extenso.