SAVITHRY AMMA Vs. JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 653/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration and for fixation of boundary. Plaintiff claimed ownership over B schedule property. Plaint C schedule property is described as part of plaint B schedule property. The defendant is the owner of the property adjoining A schedule property. It was alleged that he attempted to tresspass into the plaint C schedule property. Plaintiff valued the subject matter of the suit as Rs. 16,000/- and calculated the Court fee payable as Rs. 680/-. At the time of institution of suit, he paid an amount of Rs. 68/- as Court fee. There was dispute regarding the valuation of the subject matter of this suit.

(2.) On 11.11.2005, the Court below heard the issue regarding valuation. The plaintiff filed I.A. 10081/2005 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to amend the valuation showing the total value of the subject matter of the suit as Rs. 47033.50 and admitted that the court fee payable is Rs. 320/-. The first prayer in the suit was valued under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act ('Court Fees Act' for short) and half of the market value was shown as Rs. 8,000/-. An amount of Rs. 320/- was levied as the Court Fee payable on the first relief. For the 2nd relief, the market value of the entire property was shown as Rs. 39,033.50 for the purpose of Court fee.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that quoting of a wrong provision of law is immaterial. It is argued that a mere look into the petition will show that it was only a typographical error.