BEENA ROY Vs. ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 458/2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the learned Munsiff (dated 28.9.2010) directing amendment of the plaint valuation and payment of deficit court fee on the basis of the market value as contended by the defendant, who is the respondent herein. The petitioner instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of possession, after removal of some unauthorised constructions said to have been made by the respondent. The plaint schedule property is described as a portion of C-Schedule to a settlement deed, having an extent of 1.75 Cents. The petitioner valued the suit under S. 25(d)(ii) at Rs. 1,000/- and paid the court fee accordingly. The respondent objected to the same and produced Exts. B1 to B3 and contended that the market value of the plaint schedule property would be more than Rs. 3 lakhs per cent. The trial court relying on Exts. B1 to B3 and accepting the contention of the respondent, passed the impugned order under S. 7 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') finding that the suit is under valued and directing amendment of the plaint valuation in accordance with the market value and payment of deficit court fee before 15.10.2010.

(2.) Arguments have been heard.

(3.) Admittedly, the suit is for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The subject matter of the suit is immovable property which is capable of valuation. The relevant provision under the Act is S. 25, which reads as follows: -