ITTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in OS No. 560/94 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule property belongs to him and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the plaint schedule property. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the plaint schedule property. The building in the plaint schedule property was constructed by him. Even though the properly was purchased in the name of the fifth defendant, it actually belongs to him. Further, he perfected his title by adverse possession. The fifth defendant, who is the wife, was indebted to SIDCO. Revenue recovery notice was issued to the fifth defendant for the liabilities incurred by her with the fourth defendant and in the notice it was stated that the plaint schedule property be proceeded against. It is against that the present suit was filed.

(2.) The first prayer in the plaint is to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner who is in actual physical possession of the plaint schedule property and that the 5th defendant has no authority or right over the plaint schedule property. The second prayer is to pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from initiating or from proceeding with the revenue recovery proceedings or from interfering with the right of the plaintiff for the peaceful enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The first relief was valued for the purpose of court fees at Rs. 16,000/- and the second relief was valued at Rs. 500.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 raised a contention regarding the court fees paid and accordingly issue No. 9 was raised as to whether the valuation made for the court fees is correct. From the order of the court below, it is seen that it was prayer No. 2 that was considered. The court took the view that since the relief was sought against the revenue recovery proceedings, relief No. 2 ought to have been valued at Rs. 2,37,518 as is required under the proviso to S.27(c) of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act. In the above view of the matter, the court below held that the valuation for the relief of perpetual injunction and the computation of the court fee thereon is not correct and the plaintiff was directed to take steps. It is against that the present revision is filed.