MUHAMMEDALI Vs. PATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.47/2008, originally filed before the Munsiff Court, Ponnani, and subsequently transferred to the Sub Court, Tirur, based on pecuniary jurisdiction and re-numbered as O.S.No.20/2014. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the learned Sub Judge, wherein the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff to treat an amended relief as ancillary to the main relief sought for in the plaint - for the purpose of court fee - is rejected. The suit, as filed originally was one for fixation of boundary between plaint A and B schedule properties and also for injunction. Pendende lite, the plaint was amended and a relief for recovery of possession as well - in case any extent of land which belongs to the plaintiff is found to be in the possession of the defendants - was incorporated. For the purpose of court fee, the plaintiff/petitioner seeks to treat the amended relief for recovery of possession, as ancillary to the main relief for fixation of boundary and relied upon the Proviso to Sec. 6 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). This contention is seen rejected by the impugned Ext.P3 order.

(2.) Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Inviting the attention of this Court to Sec. 6 of the Act, it was urged that, if the relief sought for is only ancillary to the main relief, the plaint is liable to be charged only on the value of the main relief. On the scope of the expression "ancillary", learned Senior relied upon the Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar (Reprint Edition 1987), wherein it is stated thus: Ancillary. Aiding; Auxiliary; Subordinate; attendant upon; that which aids or promotes a proceeding regarded as the principal. (Abbott L.D.)(as) ancillary administration; ancillary attachment; ancillary action (Ency Lond.)