Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAYANTHARA MAHADEVAN, W/O. MAHADEVAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NAYANTHARA MAHADEVAN, W/O. MAHADEVAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 8455 of 2004(F) [2006] RD-KL 3995 (20 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8455 of 2004(F)

1. NAYANTHARA MAHADEVAN, W/O. MAHADEVAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIKKUNNU.

For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

Dated :20/12/2006

O R D E R

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J.

W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

Abdul Gafoor, J.

The writ petitioner attempted a suit for injunction, when the State Government sought to recover an amount by attaching the movable properties belonging to her. According to her, the amount was due from her father, who was residing with her and hence she was not disputing the liability. She resisted recovery out of her properties. The right of the defendants to recover the amount from her properties is disputed. So she was only liable in terms of the Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 {for short 'the Act'}, rather than the proviso to Section 27(c) of the Act to pay the required court fees. The trial court did not accept the contention and found that, as recovery of money is disputed, the court fee payable shall be in terms of the proviso to Section 27(c) of the Act. W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004

2. It is discerned from the impugned order Ext.P3 that the said court had relied on the decision in Kunharamu v. Kunhalankutty {2003(1)KLT 216}. There also the facts were almost similar. There, when there were revenue dues from a son, the Government proceeded against the property jointly owned by the father and son, the father instituted an injunction suit. Considering that fact frame, it was found in the said decision that such suit shall have to be valued in terms of the proviso to Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Act. Necessarily, the view taken by the court below in Ext.P3 cannot be stated to be unjustified. Hence, the writ petition fails, dismissed. Sd/- (K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy//

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J.

W.P.(C)No.8455 of 2004

JUDGMENT

20th December, 2006.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.