Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M. MARTHANDAN, RESIDING AT `UTHRITTATHI' versus M. SUBRAMANIAM, T.C.NO.38/419

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M. MARTHANDAN, RESIDING AT `UTHRITTATHI' v. M. SUBRAMANIAM, T.C.NO.38/419 - WP(C) No. 29425 of 2004(C) [2007] RD-KL 15520 (13 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29425 of 2004(C)

1. M. MARTHANDAN, RESIDING AT `UTHRITTATHI'
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M. SUBRAMANIAM, T.C.NO.38/419
... Respondent

2. M. RAMASWAMY, `MAKAYIRAM' MANICKAM

3. M. SIVANANDAN, T.C.NO.38/419

4. M. MOHAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

5. M. BHAGAVATHY AMMA, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

6. S.M. FAROOQUE, S.M. SALEEM STORE,

7. CHINMAYA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX,

8. CANARA BANK, CANTONMENT BRANCH,

9. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK,

10. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, PRESS ROAD,

11. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,

12. R. MANOJ KUMAR, `MAKAYIRAM', MANICKAM

13. R. VINOJ KUMAR, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

14. S. SREEKANTH, T.C.NO.38/419

15. S. ARAVIND, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

16. S. ARUN, RESIDNG AT DO. DO.

17. M/S. R. MANICKAM PILLAI, A REGISTERED

18. M/S. MANICK RETRADING COMPANY

19. M/S. MANICK COMMERCIAL CORPORATION

For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN

For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :13/08/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 29425 of 2004

Dated this the 13th day of August , 2007



JUDGMENT

Strenuous and persuasive submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I am unable to agree that Ext.P1 order, in which the learned Subordinate Judge finds that the valuation of the suit presently made by the plaintiffs is not proper, is vitiated to the extent of warranting correction under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. The essential question is whether the suit is to be valued under Section 37(1) or Section 37 (2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. According to the plaintiff/petitioner the valuation is to be made under Section 37 (2) of the Act, as he is in joint possession. But, as noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge, there are averments in the plaint which will indicate that at least a portion of the plaint schedule property has been conveyed to a stranger and there is no averment in the plaint that he is in joint possession. Though the averments in the plaint are to be accepted prima facie for determining the question of valuation and court fee, in the instant case cumulative effect of the averments in the WPC No.29425/2004 2 plaint itself will show that valuation presently made by the plaintiffs is not proper. Challenge against the impugned order fails. The writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

Dpk


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.