THANKAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNNIAMA ANTHARJANAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition Mr. V. G. Sankaranarayana Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, attacks the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kottayam on issue No. 1 regarding the correctness of the court fee paid by the plaintiffs. Issue 1 related to the question as to whether the plaintiffs have paid proper court fee. At the request of the 1st defendant, this issue was tried as a preliminary issue, and ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge by his order, which is under attack, has held that the plaintiffs should have paid the court fee upon the market value of their shares as contemplated in Section 37(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. The correctness of this view expressed by the learned Judge is challenged in this revision on behalf of the plaintiff petitioners.

(2.) THERE can be no controversy that for purposes of court fee the averments in the plaint will have to be prima facie accepted. A denial or other controversy raised in the written statement by the defendants has absolutely no bearing on the question of considering the court fee that is payable on the plaint; and for that purpose the court will have exclusively to confine its attention to the averments made in the plaint itself. The truth or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint will not arise at the time of deciding the question of the correct court fee to be paid.

(3.) AS I mentioned earlier, objection appears to have been taken on behalf of the defendants that the suit has not been properly valued and that inasmuch as there are averments in the plaint that the plaintiffs have been excluded from possession of the properties, the proper provision of the statute, under which they should have paid court fee, is on the market value of their shares of the properties under Section 37 (1) of the Act. The question is whether this contention of the defendants is correct or not. The learned Subordinate Judge has no doubt, ultimately accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants and, as I have already stated, has held that court fee will have to be paid on the market value of the plaintiffs' shares under Section 37 (1) of the Act.