Partly allowed

Ammanarcoil v. St. Thomas Ferona Church

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017OP(C)/135/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioners to amend the plaint to correct the court fee valuation under Section 25(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, noting that prayers for possession fall under Section 25(a).

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to amend plaint correcting valuation and pay deficit fee within thirty days; original petition dismissed.

Ammanarcoil Vs St. Thomas Ferona Church — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 135 of 2014 (O)

¶6

O.S.NO.521/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

PETITIONERS: PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

AMMANARCOVIL (AMMANARCOVIL) SIVA KSHETHRA PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA, REG.NO.340/2004, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT C.B.SIVAPALAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, CHEKKANATTU HOUSE.

¶9

AMMANARCOVIL (AMMANARCOVIL) SIVA KSHETHRA PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA, REG.NO.340/2004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VENUGOPAL, S/O. RAMAN MENON, PATTANATHUKATTIL, PATTAMAMKARA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN SRI.M.V. DAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶12

ST. THOMAS FERONA CHURCH KOTTAKAVU, PARAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE JOSE MALEEKKAL, S/O. POULOSE, MALEEKKAL HOUSE, NORTH PARAVOOR.

¶13

SMT. LILLY, W/O. SRI.JOHNYKUTTY, RESIDING AT KUZHIPPILLY HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA, PATTANAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.ARUNDHATHI R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.LITTO VARGHESE PALATHINKAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C).No. 135 of 2014 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.521/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2014 AS NOTED DOWN BY THE ADVOCATE CLERK FROM THE "A DIARY" MAINTAINED WITH THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, N.PARAVUR.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

AHZ/

P.Somarajan, J.

O.P.(C)No.135 of 2014 (O)

¶24

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Ext.P5 order dated 7.1.2014 passed by the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur is under challenge in this petition. The Munsiff's Court, North Paravur directed the plaintiffs to correct the valuation under Section 25(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and to pay the deficit court fee, if any, within ten days. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

¶27

Going by the averments in the plaint it is clear that the relief sought by the plaintiffs is for a declaration and also for possession of the property to which the declaration relates. It would come under the purview of Section 25(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Section 25(b) would come into play only when the prayer is for a declaration and consequential injunction without a prayer for possession of the property. When there is a prayer for possession of the property, the matter would come under the purview

¶28

O.P.(C)No.135 of 2014 (O)

¶29

:: 2 ::

¶30

of Section 25(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and hence application fails. The petitioners are permitted to amend the plaint correcting the valuation made in the plaint under Section 25(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and to pay the deficit court fee, if any, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

The original petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶32

P. Somarajan Judge

¶33

ahz/

Ammanarcoil v. St. Thomas Ferona Church

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammanarcoil v. St. Thomas Ferona Church

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Vs Sarala Kumari

Louis Vs Haridasan

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I Vs Kunchamma and Another

Nss Karayogam Branch NO.1365 Vs Mahim Aboobaker

Sweety Xavier Vs Sebastian Joseph

Kottakkakathu Vattaparambilkuduma Kshetra Trust Vs Kottakkakathu Vattapparambil Kudumba Kshetra Trust