AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—The defendants in O.S. No. 112 of 2011 of the Munsiff''s Court, Muvattupuzha are aggrieved by Ext. P6, order refusing to direct the respondents/plaintiffs to value the suit on the market value of the property under Sec. 27(a)(ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, "the Act"). The respondents though asserting title to the suit property, claimed to be in possession of the said property on the strength of Ext. P2, patta No. 26 of 1970 and prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioners from trespassing into the said property. The respondents valued the relief of injunction at Rs. 500/- and paid court fee under Sec. 27(c) of the Act.
The petitioners filed Ext. P3, written statement disputing the title claimed by the respondent. They claimed that Ext. P2 itself disclosed that the area is subject to survey demarcation. The petitioners filed Ext. P4, application under Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC to frame a preliminary issue whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties, whether the State should be made a party, whether the court fee paid is correct and whether the respondents have title to the suit property.
The learned Munsiff passed Ext. P6, order. It is found that in the nature of the reliefs sought for against the petitioners, the suit is not bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary party and that the State Government is not a necessary party.
Referring to the contention regarding valuation of the suit and payment of court fee under Sec. 27(a)(ii) of the Act, the learned Munsiff referred to the decision in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others, that complicated questions regarding title are not required to be resolved in a suit for injunction and in such cases that the parties are to be relegated to a comprehensive suit on title so far as complicated questions of title is concerned. The learned Munsiff held that the present suit being simply for injunction, can be decided based on the possession claimed by the respondents.
The learned counsel, placing reliance on the very same decision relied on by the learned Munsiff has argued that when there is a cloud on title that has to be cleared. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel, it is observed that where the plaintiff''s title is under a cloud and he has no possession, the remedy is a suit for declaration and possession with or without a consequential injunction. In this case, according to the respondents they are in possession of the suit property. They do not want an enquiry into their title. In such a situation and since the suit is for prohibitory injunction against trespass, I am not inclined to think that merely because a dispute regarding title is raised by the petitioner, the respondents should be asked to value the plaint claim based on the market value of the land and pay court fee under Sec. 27(a)(ii) of the Act. In that view of the matter, it was not necessary to frame any additional issue as requested for in Ext. P4, application. There is no reason to interfere with Ext. P6, order.
The original petition is dismissed.