K R RAJARAM Vs. C S SHIBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant / petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam holding that the court - fee paid in the suit by the plaintiff respondent is sufficient, invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. Ext. P4 is the order challenged in this petition.

(2.) Short facts necessary for disposal of this petition can be summed up thus: Plaintiff with his brother was in occupation of a room in a building owned by the defendant. On demand from the defendant for surrender of the leased premises, to facilitate the reconstruction of a new building after demolishing the old structure, on terms agreed upon and execution of Ext. P5 agreement plaintiff surrendered the building. Ext. P5 agreement provided that plaintiff will be given a room in the ground floor of the reconstructed building, with its plinth area specified, for a monthly rent of Rs.2700/- and that reconstruction of the building will be completed within a period of 1 1/2 years in terms of the approved plan obtained by the defendant. The defendant defaulted in reconstructing the building after getting vacant possession and its demolition, was the case of the plaintiff to seek for specific performance of Ext. P5 agreement to direct the defendant to reconstruct the building within a period of six months and lease out a room as agreed upon. In the alternative plaintiff sought for a decree to reconstruct the building at his cost, and adjust the expenses thereof in the rent payable if the defendant failed to obey the decree to reconstruct the building. Suit was resisted by the defendant raising various contentions including a plea that suit is under valued and sufficient court - fee has not been paid. Ext. P2 is the original written statement filed by the defendant. He later filed an additional written statement (Ext. P3) in which some more contentions were raised to reinforce the objections in the original written statement that the suit is under valued and court - fee paid insufficient. Plaintiff thereupon got the plaint amended by which some of the reliefs canvassed earlier were given up and other relief remoulded to press for a decree of specific performance of Ext. P5 agreement with an alternative prayer to permit the plaintiff to put up reconstruction. Taking note of the amended plaint and reliefs canvassed thereunder learned Munsiff concluded that many of the objections raised by the defendant to challenge the valuation of the suit and also insufficiency of court - fee paid have become redundant and not worthy of consideration. Valuation of the suit and court - fee paid by the plaintiff computing the aggregate amount for an year on the rent agreed to be paid by the plaintiff for occupation of the room in the reconstructed building under Ext. P5 agreement under S.42(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, for short the Act, was found to be proper and sufficient to repel the challenges raised by the defendant. Ext. P4 order so passed by the learned Munsiff is improper, unsustainable and suffer from serious infirmity is the case of the defendant for filing this petition.

(3.) I heard the counsel on both sides.