Valuation; Siju Paul Vs. T.V. Subash [Kerala High Court, 11-06-2012]

Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala) – Ss. 25 & 27(c) – Suit is for mandatory injunction – Return the cheques issued as security – Not for declaration – Valuation of the plaint under S. 27(c) is proper.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

C.R.P.NO.65/2012

OS.58/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR

Dated this the 11th Day of June 2012

FOR REVISION PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: BY ADVS.SRI.T. KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.), SRI. JAMSHEED HAFIZ, FOR RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU, BY ADV. SMT.C.S.RAJANI

O R D E R

The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to return the cheques allegedly issued by the plaintiff as security. The suit is not one for a declaration that the plaintiff has already paid the amount due to the defendant covered by the cheques in question. Therefore the finding of the court below that the valuation of the plaint under

Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959

is proper cannot be faulted with.

2. The plaintiff has a contention that he has already paid Rs.1,05,000/- due to the defendant and that the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- shown in both the cheques together is not the correct amount. These are all incidental questions to be considered by the court below in the matter of granting the relief of mandatory injunction sought for. But the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration to that effect and therefore there is no necessity to pay the court fee under Section 25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in

Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd Vs. Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P (A.I.R 968 SC 102)

and in

Sathyavrathan Vs. The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank (1988 (1) KLT 553).

The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.