Kerala High Court
Ansilamma vs John Selvarajan on 11 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 2509 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2019 IN CMA No.15/2017 OF
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2:
1 ANSILAMMA,
AGED 67 YEARS,
W/O. LATE THOBIYAS, MARIYALAYAM, KOTTAPURAM,
VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
2 MARY PRABHA,
AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O. LATE THOBIYAS, MARIYALAYAM, KOTTAPURAM,
VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS.
V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)
SMT.V.JAYA RAGI
SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)(K/993/2012)
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 & PLAINTIFFS 3 TO 5:
1 JOHN SELVARAJAN,
AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O. JOHN, MARIYALAYAM, KOTTAPURAM,
VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA,
NOW RESIDING AT `RAJ COTTAGE',
CHINNATHURA, THOOTHOOR P.O.,
PIN - 629 176, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU STATE.
2 JOHN RAJENDRAN,
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. JOHN, MARIYALAYAM, KOTTAPURAM,
VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA,
NOW RESIDING AT RAJ BHAVAN, THENNOORKONAM,
KOTTAPURAM P.O., VIZHINJAM VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 523.
O.P(C).No.2509/2019 2
3 JOHN ROBERT,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. JOHN, MARIYALAYAM, KOTTAPURAM,
VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA,
NOW RESIDING AT JESUS BHAVAN, KADAIKULAM,
KOTTAPURAM P.O., VIZHINJAM VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 523.
4 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
NOW SBI, VIZHINJAM BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 695 521.
5 VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT AUTHORITY
PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO),
`VIPANJIKA TOWER', NEAR GOVERNMENT GUEST
HOUSE, THYCAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
6 ARULDAS,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O. LATE THOBIYAS, MARIYALAYAM,
KOTTAPURAM, VIZHINJAM VILALGE,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 523.
7 SUNIJA RANI ALIAS SUNIJASYAM,
AGED 47 YEARS,
D/O. LATE THOBIYAS, MARIYALAYAM,
KOTTAPURAM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 523.
8 SELVAKUMAR,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE THOBIYAS, MARIYALAYAM,
KOTTAPPURAM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 523.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SRI.GOVIND PADMANABHAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2022, THE COURT ON 11.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P(C).No.2509/2019 3
"C.R"
A.BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
================================
O.P(C).No.2509 of 2019
================================
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1043/2012 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara arraying defendants 1 to 5 and plaintiffs 3 to 5 as respondents.
2. On notice, the 1st and 2nd respondents appeared through Advocate Govind Padmanabhan; 5th respondent appeared through Advocate Vipin P.Varghese; no representation for the other respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Arun.V.G and Advocate Vinod Padmanabhan appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. The summary of the case is as under:
Plaintiffs 1 to 5 filed O.S.No.1043/2012 before the First O.P(C).No.2509/2019 4 Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to withdraw an amount of Rs.23,19,909/- [Rupees twenty three lakhs nineteen thousand nine hundred and nine] along with proportionate interest out of the total sale consideration that was credited in his account with the fourth defendant as per cheque number 374964 and to hand over the same to the plaintiffs as expeditiously as possible, in in case, for any reason, first defendant fails to obey or comply with the decree so passed, then, directing the fourth defendant to hand over an amount of Rs.23,19,909/- [Rupees twenty three lakhs nineteen thousand nine hundred and nine] along with proportionate interest from the account of the first defendant out of the amount that was credited as per cheque number 374964.
B. Allowing the plaintiffs to realize and recover the cost of this suit from the defendants and their assets.
C. Such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the redressal of plaintiffs' grievance."
5. The relief sought in the plaint is valued at Rs.500/- and an amount of Rs.20/- was paid under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Ext.P1 is the copy of plaint. The valuation of the Suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Suit was challenged before the Munsiff Court, by the defendants. As per Ext.P6, copy of order dated 14.02.2017 the learned First Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara sustained the said contention. The operative portion of Ext.P6 is as under:
"Considering the contentions on both sides, I am of the view that proviso to Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits O.P(C).No.2509/2019 5 Valuation Act, 1959 squarely applies in this case. Hence the relief is claimed in respect of money, in this case Rs.23,19,909/- court fee shall be computed on behalf of the amount sought to be recovered. And as per the Amendment in Civil Courts Act in the year 2013 in Section 11(2), the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court is upto Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, it is pellucid from the above said provision that this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this suit and accordingly the plaint is returned to presentation before proper court having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the same."
6. Ext.P6 was challenged before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram by preferring CMA.No.15/2017. The learned Additional District Judge-I heard the appeal and delivered Ext.P8 judgment. As per Ext.P8, it was held that the finding of the Additional Munsiff that the Suit was one falling under the proviso to clause (c) of Section 27 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was incorrect. The learned District Judge held that instead of proviso to Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act it falls under Section 22 of the Act. Finally it was ordered as under:
"In the result, this appeal allowed in part and the Order dated 14.02.2017 in O.S.No.1043/2012 passed by the Additional Munsiff's Court-I, Neyyattinkara is modified. The Munsiff's court shall extend sufficient time to the plaintiffs permitting them to make necessary amendments including the `valuation' as well as `court-fee' portions O.P(C).No.2509/2019 6 of the plaint. Thereafter, the learned Munsiff shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of O.VII R.10 of CPC, thereby returning the suit to be presented before the proper court having jurisdiction in the subject-matter. Otherwise the plaint shall be rejected under Order VII Rule II C.P.C."
Exts.P6 and P8 are under challenge in this Original Petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that one Mariyammal Madathinal, the owner of the property covered by sale deeds No.119 of 1979 and 180 of 1979 died intestate on 18.11.1986 and thereafter the property was inherited by 7 daughters and 4 sons of Mariyammal Madathil. They are (1) Thobiyas, (2) John Selvarajan (1st respondent), (3) Rajendran John (2nd respondent), (4) John Robert (3rd respondent), (5) Theresammal, (6) Sesammal, (7) Porthasi, (8) Mary, (9) Seravi, (10) Mariya Pushpam, (11) Pushapa Lilly. The 2nd respondent purchased the shares of the above mentioned 7 female members of deceased Mariyammal Madathinal as per sale deed No.699/1992. Later the property had been held in common by the `sons' inclusive of Thobias as co-owners. While so, Thobias died on 10.10.1994 and his co-ownership right and possession over the above property was devolved upon petitioners 1 and 2 O.P(C).No.2509/2019 7 and respondents 6 to 8 (who are the plaintiffs in the Suit).
8. While so, the property was notified for acquisition by the 2nd respondent for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project. Thereafter as per Ext.P3, copy of sale deed, John Selvarajan, John Robert, Ansilamma, Sunija Rani, Rajendran John, Arul Das and Selvakumar jointly transferred the property in the name of Vizhinjam International Seaport Project and the 1 st petitioner herein executed sale deed in relation to the other plaintiffs also based on Ext.P2 power of attorney executed by them. It is pointed out further that the sale prize was given by way of cheque in the name of John Selvarajan (1 st defendant in the Suit), John Robert (3rd defendant in the Suit), Rajendran John (2nd defendant in the Suit) and in the name of the plaintiffs and the cheque amount is Rs.2,55,19,005/-. Ext.P4 is the copy of the cheque. It is submitted by the learned counsel further that though Ext.P4 was in the joint names of the executant of Ext.P3 sale deed, the same got credited in the account of the 1 st defendant John Selvarajan as a trustee. Therefore, John Selvarajan is bound to give the share due to the plaintiffs being legal-heirs of Thobias O.P(C).No.2509/2019 8 coming to Rs.23,19,909/- along with accrued interest thereof. Since John Selvarajan hesitated to do so, the present Suit was filed.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Additional District Judge directed the plaintiffs to pay court fee under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act holding the view that the Suit is one for `realisation of money' due from the 1st defendant. He has pointed out that the learned District Judge found that the order of the Munsiff holding the view that the petitioners shall have to pay court fees under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, was set aside by the learned District Judge.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the relief sought for in the Suit required to be valued under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and, therefore, the valuation shown as Rs.500/- and court fee paid as Rs.20/- are correct. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with transfer by co-owners of share in common property. Section O.P(C).No.2509/2019 9 47 of the Transfer of Property Act provides as under:
"47. Transfer by co-owners of share in common property.-- Where several co-owners of immovable property transfer a share therein without specifying that the transfer is to take effect on any particular share or shares of the transferors, the transfer, as among such transferors, takes effect on such shares equally where the shares were equal, and, where they were unequal, proportionately to the extent of such shares."
11. He also pointed out Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 while asserting that there is constructive trust created in the facts of the given case. Section 90 of the Act is extracted hereunder:
"90. Advantage gained by qualified owner.--Where a tenant for life, co-owner, mortgagee, or other qualified owner of any property, by availing himself of his position as such, gains an advantage in derogation of the rights of the other persons interested in the property, or where any such owner, as representing all persons interested in such property, gains any advantage, he must hold, for the benefit of all persons interested, the advantage so gained, but subject to repayment by such persons of their due share of the expenses properly incurred, and to an indemnity by the same persons against liabilities properly contracted, in gaining such advantage."
12. Similarly the learned counsel also given emphasis to Section 39 of the Special Relief Act dealing with mandatory injunction. Section 39 provides as under:
O.P(C).No.2509/2019 10
"39. Mandatory injunctions.--When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts."
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed certain other decisions also, while canvassing the point since there is a constructive trust in the matter of money sought to be obtained from the 1st defendant by way of mandatory injunction, which was originally given by way of cheque in the joint names of the executants of Ext.P3 sale deed and therefore mandatory injunction is the remedy by valuing and paying court fee under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The first decision is one reported in [AIR 1968 SC 102 : (1967) 3 SCR 920], The Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. He also placed a decision of this Court reported in [1980 KHC 214 : 1980 KLT 806 : 1980 KLN 572], Collector of Customs v. Abdurahimankutty, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court after referring the decision in The Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P.'s case (supra) and also another O.P(C).No.2509/2019 11 decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 1973 SC 2384], Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad. Para.9 of the above judgment is as under:
"9. The decision of the Supreme Court in V.P.Sugar Works v. C.I of Stamps (AIR 1968 SC 102) seems to conclude the question. The Sugar Works was assessed to pay Rs.33/- lakhs as cess and purchase tax under certain enactments of Uttar Pradesh, and the suit was to restrain the State from recovering the same. The plaint alleged that the enactments concerned were invalid and void for the reasons stated in the plaint; and the question was whether the suit was one for injunction, or one for a declaratory decree with injunction as consequential relief. The Supreme Court held that the prayer in substance was for injunction, and said:
"It is true that for purposes of the Court fees Act, it is the substance and not the form which has to be considered while deciding which particular provision of the Act applies. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that the actual relief prayed for in the plaint was an injunction restraining the State and its authorities to realise from the appellant company the aforesaid cess and the purchase tax. It is clear from the plaint when read as a whole that though the appellant company alleged that the Acts were void and therefore non est for the reasons set out therein, it did not seek any declaration that they were void. The plaint proceeds on the footing that the said Acts were void and that therefore the state of U.P. Or its authorities had no power to realise the said tax and the said cess. It may be that while deciding whether to grant the injunction or not, the court might have to consider the question as to the validity or otherwise of the said Acts. But that must happen in almost every case where an injunction is prayed for. If for the O.P(C).No.2509/2019 12 mere reason that the court might have to go into such a question, a prayer for injunction were to be treated as one for a declaratory decree of which the consequential relief is injunction all suits where injunction is prayed for would have to be treated as falling under Col. (a) of sub-s.(iv) of S.7 and in that view Cl.(b) of sub-s. (iv-B) of S.7 would be superfluous. The contention urged by Mr.Bishan Narain, therefore, cannot be accepted. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present case even to go to the above extent, as there is no challenge in the suit to the validity of any enactment or order. An assessment of duty made by the Customs authorities in this case cannot stand on a footing different from the assessments made by the authorities of the U.P. State in the case considered by the Supreme Court; and if astuteness of drafting a plaint cannot mislead the court, so must be the case with astuteness in raising objections designed to deter litigants from approaching the court at all."
14. Apart from that another decision of this Court reported in [1988 KHC 7 : 1988(1) KLT 553 : 1988 (1) KLJ 566 :
AIR 1988 NOC 49], Sathyan v. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank has been placed to contend that more or less a similar issue was considered in this decision by this Court while holding that the Suit has to be valued only under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. On perusal of the said decision, this Court considered a Suit filed for an injunction restraining a bank from paying the amount covered by a fixed O.P(C).No.2509/2019 13 deposit receipt by filing a suit for injunction. In the plaint, the actual relief prayed for is only for an injunction.
The following are the prayers in the Suit dealt in the above case:
"a. When a suit is filed for an injunction restraining a Bank from paying the amount covered by a fixed deposit receipt, is the plaintiff liable to pay court fee on the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt, treating the suit as a declarator suit or is it sufficient to pay court fee only on the relief of injunction which he has sought" A question of court fee on which wilt also depend the valuation for purpose of jurisdiction thus arises for consideration in this revision.
b. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Varkala praying for a decree: (a) Prohibiting the 1 st defendant bank from releasing the amount covered by the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.F.409160/FBD-38/76 and renewed as O.307528/MID/25/79 to the 2nd defendant or anybody else and directing the 1st defendant to release the said amount covered by the said fixed deposit receipt with interest from 24.-3-1984 to the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs. He valued the reliefs of injunction under S.27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act at Rs.300/- and paid a total court fee of Rs.24/-. The value for purpose of jurisdiction was also shown as Rs.300/-."
While answering the question in para.7 to 9, this Court categorically held as under:
"7. It is settled law that the court fee payable is to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint and the relief sought by the plaintiff. The court, however, will have to look at the substance of the relief sought, at the question of court fee is linked to the substantial relief claimed.
8. In the plaint now filed, the actual relief prayed for is only for an injunction. It is clear from the plaint O.P(C).No.2509/2019 14 averments that the petitioner asserts that he alone is entitled to the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt in the bank, and does not seek any declaration of his right. He, therefore, proceeds on the footing that the bank has no power to pay the amount to any other person. It may be that while deciding to grant injunction or not, the court might have to consider the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount. The suit in which the plaintiff does not pray for the money cannot be treated on exactly the same footing as a suit in which he does pray for such relief for purposes of court fee.
9. It is, therefore clear that the suit has to be valued only under S.27(C) as a suit for injunction and not under S.25, as a suit for declaration or under S.22, as a suit for recovery of money."
15. Another decision of this Court reported in [1988 KHC 613 : 1988 (2) KLT 958 : 1988 (2) KLJ 716 : 1989 (1) KLN SN45A], Kuriakose v. Joseph is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, this Court considered the reliefs prayed for in a suit, viz. (a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the Lottery Ticket No. AP 541855 (Kerala Bhagya Mala) and that it belongs to him absolutely, (b) consequently restraining the 1st defendant, his agents or men by a permanent prohibitory injunction from disbursing the first prize in Kerala Bhagya Mala Lottery drawn on 12.-2-1987 at Kasaragod in O.P(C).No.2509/2019 15 respect of Lottery Ticket No. AP 541855 to the 2 nd and 3rd defendants or restraining the said defendants from collecting the said amount in any manner whatsoever. Relief (c) is in respect of costs and (d) in respect of incidental reliefs. In the said case, this Court considered the proper court fee to be paid in the Suit and it was held that the court fee payable in the said case is under Section 25(d) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. In this decision, another decision of this Court in [1979-85 Kerala Unreported Cases 301 : 1980 KLN 483], Chenthamarakshan v. Velayudhan Nair & Ors. was referred wherein there was prayer for declaration that a lottery ticket in question was belonged to plaintiff therein and also for consequential injunction. Although the prize amount of the ticket was Rs.3 lakh, this Court held that the learned Munsiff Court had jurisdiction to try the Suit. It was held further that since the money was in custodia legis it was not necessary for the plaintiff therein to seek recovery of possession of the ticket or the money and that the declaration and injunction sought for were proper reliefs. On that basis, it was held that the valuation given also O.P(C).No.2509/2019 16 cannot be questioned and that the suit has been properly filed in the Munsiff's Court.
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in another decision of this Court reported in [2015(4) KHC 531 : 2015 (4) KLT 273 : AIR 2015 Ker. 276 :
ILR 2015(4) Ker. 927], Suresh v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., Thrissur, wherein the case of the plaintiff was that he had pledged gold ornaments for availing a loan from the defendant.
When he approached the defendant to settle the liability, latter demanded unconscionable rate of interest. In that context, a prayer was made in the plaint to allow the plaintiff to redeem the gold ornaments pledged with the defendant with the rate of interest specified in the plaint. A prayer for relief of injunction prohibiting the defendant from taking any steps to sell the pledged goods was also sought for. Trial Court ordered to return the plaint under O.7 R.10(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the reason that the relief for permanent prohibitory injunction claimed in the suit was incorrectly valued at Rs.500/-.
The said order was challenged before the District Court by filing O.P(C).No.2509/2019 17 a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed.
17. Allowing the petition, challenging the above findings, this Court held that, considering the scope of the suit, it can only be held that the subject matter is the petitioner's right of redemption on discharging the loan liability. It is so because none of the parties have a case that the gold pledged does not belong to the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner cannot make a claim to redeem the gold without clearing off the liability. So, his right to redeem the gold is directly connected to the discharge of his liability. Viewing from that perspective, it can be seen that the suit is more in the nature of a suit for accounts. In the light of these discussions, it is discernible that the suit is not one falling under S.24 of the 1959 Act as the suit cannot be termed as one for recovery of movable property. However, S.35 of the 1959 Act may be attracted in this case.
18. Another decision reported in [2012 KHC 2604 : 2012 (3) KLT 100], Siju Paul v. T.V.Subash is also highlighted where this Court considered a suit for declaration that the plaintiff had O.P(C).No.2509/2019 18 already paid the amount due to the defendant covered by the cheques in question. Then it was held that 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. In the said case also, this Court referred the decision in The Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P.'s case (supra) to hold so.
19. In order to buttress the point that there is a constructive trust under Section 90 of the Indian Trust Act, as borne out from the facts espoused, the learned counsel relied on a decision reported in [AIR 2018 Ker116, ILR 2018 (3) Kerala 30, 2018 (2) KLT 947], Viswambaran v. Sanu. Para.38 of the judgment is given emphasis to establish the said point.
20. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 vehemently supported Ext.P8 order and argued that court fee under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act shall be paid in this case, where, actually the plaintiffs seek the recovery of money. He has placed a decision reported in [2002 KHC 1772 : 2002 (1) SCC 304 : AIR 2002 SC 233 : 2002 O.P(C).No.2509/2019 19 (1) CHN (Supp) 72 : 2002 (1) Andh LT 26], Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh & Ors. to contend that the court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint. Para.8 of the above judgment is relevant, which is extracted hereunder:
"It is well settled that the Court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint.the plaintiff has attempted at evading payment of court fee or unless there be a provision of law requiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff. The court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the court fees payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. Yet, an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of court fees and fixed for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some court which it does not have, or depriving the court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, can also be interfered with by the court. It is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of court fee. The defence taken in the written statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of court fee by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is ultimately found to have omitted to seek an essential relief which he ought to have prayed for, and without which the relief sought for in the plaint as framed and filed cannot be allowed to him, the plaintiff shall have to suffer the dismissal of the suit."O.P(C).No.2509/2019 20
21. While answering the query involved in this matter, reference to Section 27(c) and 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is necessary. Reference to the proviso to Section 27(c) is also relevant. For clarity Section 27(c) and proviso are extracted hereunder:
"27. Suits for injunction:-- In a suit for injunction- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(c) in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees five hundred whichever is higher:
[Provided that where the relief sought by the plaintiff is in respect of money sought to be recovered from him such relief shall not, for the purpose of computation of fee, be valued at an amount less than one half of the amount sought to be so recovered.] No doubt, proviso stipulates that the relief sought by the plaintiff is in respect of money sought to be recovered from him and such relief shall not, for the purpose of computation of fee, be valued at an amount less than one half of the amount sought to be so recovered. In the given facts of the case, the plaintiffs not challenged any amount to be recovered from them and the Suit is one for directing the 1st defendant to hand over the amount due to the plaintiffs, lying in his account. In fact, the proviso to Section 27(c) O.P(C).No.2509/2019 21 has no application in the facts of the case and therefore the learned District Judge rightly set aside the said finding of the Munsiff and I endorse the said finding.
22. Section 22 stipulates that in a suit for money, including a suit for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed. It is true that if the suit is one filed for realisation of money based on some suit documents, viz., cheque, promissory note, agreement or otherwise as dealt in Section 22 of the Act, definitely the suit should be valued under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the specific provision embodied in the Act in relation to `suit for money'.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to bring the nature of the suit herein as one outside the purview of a simple suit for money, for which court fee is payable under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and he would canvass that in this matter property on which Thobias and other children of Mariyammal Madathil obtained co- O.P(C).No.2509/2019 22 ownership right, consequent on the death of Mariyammal Madathil, when acquired for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project, the same was transferred by the joint owners as per Ext.P3 sale deed. As per Ext.P4, the copy of cheque, also it could be gathered that the amount was given in the joint names of the executants of the documents and the same happened to be credited in the account of the 1 st defendant and, therefore, the 1 st defendant became the custodian of the money as a trustee and he had the legal obligation to give to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the subject matter of the Suit is not the money involved, but the subject matter of the Suit is to compel the 1 st defendant to perform his legal obligation to disburse the money towards the due share of the plaintiffs from the amount given as sale consideration.
24. The vital question in this matter is whether a constructive trust is created in the facts of the given case as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the proper relief available to the plaintiffs is one in the nature of mandatory injunction dealt under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. In O.P(C).No.2509/2019 23 this matter, available materials would go to show that the property left by Mariyammal Madathil covered by sale deeds No.119 of 1979 and 180 of 1979 devolved upon her children consequent to her death on 18.11.1986. Since there is no dispute with regard to the joint ownership, when the property intended to be acquired for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project, the co-owners jointly executed Ext.P3 sale deed and prior to that the 2nd respondent herein purchased the share of 7 female members, who were also co-owners of the property. Consequent to Ext.P3 sale deed, towards the sale price, the amount also was given by way of Ext.P4 cheque in the joint names of the executants of Ext.P3, including the plaintiffs. However, Ext.P4 got encashed and the amount was credited in the account of the 1 st defendant. In such scenario, what happened legally, is the matter of discussion.
25. In this connection it is worthwhile to refer Section 90 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, dealing with advantage gained by the qualified owner. Section 90 provides that where a co-owner O.P(C).No.2509/2019 24 or other qualified owner of any property by availing himself for his possession as such, gains of advantage in derogation of the rights of the other persons interested in the property or where any such owner as representing all persons interested in such a property, gains any advantage, he must held for the benefit of all persons interested the advantage so gained, but subject to repayment by such person of their due share of the expenses property incurred and to an indemnity by the same persons against liabilities properly contracted in granting such advantage. Therefore, a co-owner or a qualified owner once getting advantage, he must hold the advantage so gained for the benefit of all persons interested. In this matter Ext.P3 was executed by the co-owners and the sale consideration was given by Ext.P4 cheque in the name of all the executants of Ext.P3. But the same got credited in the account of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the said amount in the account of the 1st defendant to be held as money which has been in the custody of the 1 st defendant as a trustee for the benefit of all persons interested, including the plaintiffs. Similarly, as per Section 47 of the Transfer of Property O.P(C).No.2509/2019 25 Act when several co-owners of immovable property transfer a share therein without specifying that the transfer is to take effect on any particular share or shares of the transferors, the transfer, as among such transferors, takes effect on such shares equally where the shares were equal, and, where they were unequal, proportionately to the extent of such shares. Reading Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 in juxtaposition with Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has to be held that the amount in the account of the 1st defendant, credited by way of sale price of the property by executing Ext.P3 sale deed by the co-owners on encashment of Ext.P4 has been in the custody of the 1 st defendant for himself and for the benefit of other co-owners and there is a legal obligation on the part of the 1 st defendant to deliver the money to other co-owners in the proportion of their shares. Now comes another significant question, ie., whether the present Suit is a `Suit for realisation of money' or a `Suit compelling performance of a legal obligation'? In this connection, it is observed that if the Suit is one for adjudicating O.P(C).No.2509/2019 26 the right of the plaintiffs in relation to the money involved and to get recovery of the same, the Suit shall be valued under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and court fee thereunder shall be paid. Similarly, if the Suit is one filed for declaring the right and title of the plaintiffs over the property covered by Ext.P3 and consequently over the sale price on the basis of apprehension regarding the title of the plaintiffs over the property by creation of a cloud with regard to their right and title over the property and sale price, the Suit shall be one for declaration of the said right and the consequential injunction. If so, the Suit shall be valued as provided under Section 25(b) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. However, in the present case, the money given towards sale price in the joint names of the executants/co-owners of the joint property happened to be credited in the account of the 1 st defendant and the right of the plaintiffs to get the same is not in dispute and the 1 st defendant is estopped from contending so, in the facts of the given case, particularly, when he got transferred the co-ownership right of the female co-owners as per sale deed No.699/1992. O.P(C).No.2509/2019 27 Though the 1st defendant is duty bound to deliver the money to the other co-owners in the proportion of their shares, when he fails to discharge the legal obligation, the Suit cannot be held as one for realisation of money for which court fee under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act to be paid. Similarly, it cannot be said that the Suit shall be one seeking relief of declaration and consequential injunction by paying court fee under Section 25(b) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In this matter, there is breach of obligation on the part of the 1st defendant to deliver the money to the plaintiffs, being co-owners. In this scenario, in order to prevent the breach of such obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of the said obligation by resorting to the remedy of mandatory injunction provided under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act and for which, the valuation and court fee to be paid shall be, no doubt, under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Section 27(c) provides that excluding cases covered under sub sections (a) and (b), sub section (c) is applicable. As per sub section (c) whether the subject matter of a O.P(C).No.2509/2019 28 suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher. It has to be appreciated that proviso to Section 27(c) has no application to the facts of this case since the plaintiffs herein not sought any relief in respect of money to be recovered from them.
26. Therefore, I am of the view that the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiffs herein is to be valued under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and, therefore, the orders impugned shall stand set aside.
In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. It is held that the valuation made by the plaintiffs in the Suit is perfectly in order and, therefore, the suit can be proceeded without insisting for valuing or paying any court fee, further.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
O.P(C).No.2509/2019 29
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2509/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.
1043 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST
ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DEED NO.
50 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1948 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.374964 DRAWN IN
FAVOUR OF STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
DATED 26.08.2011.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT IN O.S.
NO.1043 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF THE
FIRST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017
IN O.S. NO.1043 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF
THE FIRST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
APPEAL IN CMA NO. 55 OF 2017 ON THE
FILES OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.07.2019 IN CMA NO. 15 OF 2017 ON THE
FILES OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.