High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
M. MARTHANDAN, RESIDING AT `UTHRITTATHI' v. M. SUBRAMANIAM, T.C.NO.38/419 - WP(C) No. 29425 of 2004(C)  RD-KL 15520 (13 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 29425 of 2004(C)
1. M. MARTHANDAN, RESIDING AT `UTHRITTATHI'
1. M. SUBRAMANIAM, T.C.NO.38/419
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
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.W.P.(C) NO. 29425 of 2004
Dated this the 13th day of August , 2007
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,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.