SIJU PAUL Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to return the cheques allegedly issued by the plaintiff as security. The suit is not one for a declaration that the plaintiff has already paid the amount due to the defendant covered by the cheques in question. Therefore the finding of the court below that the valuation of the plaint under S.27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 is proper cannot be faulted with.

(2.) The plaintiff has a contention that he has already paid Rs.1,05,000/- due to the defendant and that the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- shown in both the cheques together is not the correct amount. These are all incidental questions to be considered by the court below in the matter of granting the relief of mandatory injunction sought for. But the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration to that effect and therefore there is no necessity to pay the court fee under S.25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd Vs. Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P (A.I.R 968 SC 102) and in Sathyavrathan Vs. The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank ( 1988 (1) KLT 553 ).