SOUDAMINI Vs. A.P. PADMANABHAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for injunction, when the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, issue on title was framed and the court below directed to remit court fee under Section 27(a) of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The plaintiff calculated the market value of the property under Section 7(2) of the Act treating the suit property as agricultural land and claimed that he is only bound to pay court fee on that basis. This stand of the plaintiff was disputed by the defendants by pointing out that the property in question is a garden land with a residential building therein and if that be so, court fee will have to be paid under Section 7(3A) of the Act.

(2.) THE court below seems to have greatly impressed by the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents -defendants and ordered payment of court fee under Section 7(3A) of the Act. The said order is under challenge.

(3.) THE court below, according to the petitioner, was carried away by the nomenclature of the property shown in the documents so also the fact that there is a residential building. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision in Narayanan Nair vs. Dr. Lokeshan Nair : (2014 (2) KLT 868).