ST ATNONYS CHURCH, VADUTHALA Vs. PAUL @ OUSO PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order dated 26.6.2012 in O.S.No.544/2011 of II Additionial Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, wherein a preliminary issue relating to the valuation of the suit and the court fee payable to has been decided.

(2.) The petitioner had preferred a suit for declaration of title that the plaint 'B' schedule property belongs to the plaintiff Church and for recovery of possession. For the relief of declaration of title, the plaintiff had valued the suit under Section 25(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and for recovery of possession, valued the suit under Section 30 of the Act. For declaration of title, the suit is valued at Rs. 1,000/- and for recovery of possession, the suit is valued at Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent/defendant raised an objection regarding valuation of the property for the purpose of payment of court fee. The issue was taken up as a preliminary issue and the court below found that valuation was not correct and accordingly, directed payment of court fee based on the fair value fixed by the Government in respect of the property, which would come to Rs. 10 lakhs and the petitioner was directed to pay the requisite court fee.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in Beena Roy v. Abdul Rahim, (2012) 4 KerLT 207 and Narayanan Nair v. Lokeshan Nair, (2014) 2 KerLT 868. The learned counsel relied upon the Beena Roy's case to contend that the fair value fixed under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act has no relevance to determine the market value for the purpose of the valuation of the suit and Narayanan Nair's case relied upon to contend that mere presence of a residential house in an agricultural land would not make it a non-agricultural land. The predominant purpose for which the land is used is to be taken into consideration to ascertain whether the land in question is an agricultural land or not. The learned counsel also argued that, when viewed in the light of Section 7 of the Act, such properties can be treated only as an agricultural land. The Advocate Commissioner's Report indicates that there are some trees in the property. Insofar as they are not yielding trees, the minimum valuation had been opted by the petitioner.