Raveendran Mannadiar vs Abdul Sathar, Kaja Husssain and Abdul Assis

Justice Thomas P. Joseph

APPENDIX

PETITIONER''S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1

True copy of the order on additional issue No. 1 in osno.118/2009 on the file of the court of munsiff, chittur dated 24.9.2010

RESPONDENTS'' EXHIBITS:

Nil

Ext.P1, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Chittur in O.S. No. 118 of 2009 on issue No. 1 framed in that case and directing the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint and assess court fee payable under Sec.(3A) of Sec.7 of the Kerala Court Fees and suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act") is under challenge. Petitioner sued the respondents for a declaration of his title over the suit property, recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction. Petitioner contended that the suit property belongs to him as per assignment deed No. 2330 of 2008 executed by Dhanalakshmi who got title and possession of the property as per assignment deed No. 1256 of 1970. Later, the plaint was amended to state that the purchase certificate obtained by the respondents as regards the suit property and building is null and void, not binding on the petitioner and that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between petitioner and the respondents. Petitioner assessed market value of the building in the suit property as if it comes under Sec.7(3) of the Act, on the basis that the rental value of that building is Rs. 300/- per annum fixed its market value at Rs. 3,000/- and paid court fee under Sec.25(d)(ii) of the Act. Respondents contended that there is no proper valuation of the suit property. According to the respondents, the property scheduled in the plaint is liable to be valued under Sec.7(3A) of the Act.

Learned Munsiff by Ext.P1, order upheld objection of the respondents and directed the petitioner to amend the plaint and assess the market value of the property under Sec.7(3A) of the Act. That order is under challenge as aforesaid.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the building takes in the entire ten cents referred in the plaint schedule as certified by the Panchayat authorities and hence assessment of the market value should be under Sub-sec.3 of Sec.7 of the Act. It is contended that in that view of the matter, valuation of the suit property made by the petitioner is correct. Learned counsel requested that Ext.P1, order may be set aside.

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that even a perusal of assignment deed No. 2330 of 2008 and description of the property in the plaint schedule would show that petitioner is claiming right over the ten cents and the building situated thereon, petitioner is not claiming title over the building alone and that the ten cents cannot be described as land appurtenant to the building over which alone petitioner is claiming the right. In that view of the matter, the learned Munsiff was right in concluding that the market value. Should be assessed under Sub-sec.(3A) of Sec.7 of the Act.

It is relevant to refer to the plaint, a copy of which is given to me for perusal. In the plaint schedule, the property is described as ''paramba'' comprised in survey No. 692/2, TP No. 2085 and the dilapidated building situated thereon. In the plaint, petitioner has proceeded as if he has got title and possession of the said paramba and the building situated thereon by virtue of assignment deed No. 2330 of 2008 executed by Dhanalakshmy who in turn acquired title and possession as per assignment deed No. 1256 of 1970.

I am also given a copy of assignment deed No. 2330 of 2008. There, it is stated by the (alleged) vendor of the petitioner that she has removed the old structure and put up a new structure in the year, 1972. It is seen that in the said document, the paramba (referred in the plaint schedule) is valued for Rs. 1,20,000/- and the building is valued for Rs. 55,000/-. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner is claiming right over the building alone and the land appurtenant to it. On the other hand, petitioner is claiming title and possession of paramba referred to in the plaint schedule covered by the documents of title relied on by him as also the building situated thereon.

Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.7 of the Act would apply only to cases where the subject matter of the suit is building alone. Sub-sec.(3A) of Sec.7 refers to any property other than agricultural land and building falling under Sub-secs.(2) and (3). Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.7 of the Act relates to agricultural land while Sub-sec.(3) refers to the building. It is clear that Sub-sec.(3A) of Sec.7 of the Act relates to the property other than agricultural land referred to in Sub-sec.(2) and building (alone) referred to under Sub-sec.(3). I stated that the claim of title is over the property described in the plaint schedule and the building situated thereon. I also stated that the property and the building are separately valued even in the assignment deed in favour of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, petitioner cannot successfully contend that his claim is over the building and the appurtenant land which should fall under Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.7 of the Act. Learned Munsiff is right in concluding that the assessment of market value has to be in accordance with Sub-sec.(3A) of Sec.7 of the Act.

Original Petition is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.