PANKAJAKSHA KURUP Vs. FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been referred before the Full Bench since the correctness of the Division Bench decision in Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon, 1981 KLT 763 , was doubted before the Division Bench.

(2.) The plaintiff in O.S. 711/1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff is alleged to be a lunatic and is represented by his guardian, his wife. The allegation in the plaint are that the decree in O.S. 183 of 1984 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam was obtained against the plaintiff (who was the defendant therein) when he was a lunatic and the proceedings in that suit continued against the plaintiff without appointing a guardian. Hence, according to the plaintiff, the decree is a nullity. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint are: (i)a declaration that the decree in O.S. 183 of 1984 is null and void; and (ii) consequential injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 from executing that decree. The plaintiff valued the declaratory prayer at Rs. 30,000/- as per S.25(d)(ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and a court fee of Rs. 1050/- was payable on it. The defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement. They contended that the suit was not properly valued and, therefore, the court fee paid was not correct. Hence an issue was raised as follows:

(3.) When the revision petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the decision in Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon, 1981 KLT 763, was not correctly decided. Hence, the matter was referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench was of the view that since the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench was raised, this matter is decided by a Full Bench. It is in these circumstances, the matter has come before the Full Bench.