Pankajaksha Kurup vs Fathima And Ors. on 13 March, 1998
Hence it is not necessary to go into the question whether the decision in Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon, 1981 Ker LT763 : (AIR 1982 Ker 35), is correct or not.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (2.30 seconds)Documents citing
P.K. Vasudeva Rao vs K.C. Hari Menon And Anr. on 22 September, 1981
Satheedevi vs Prasanna & Anr on 7 May, 2010
The judgments of the Division
Benches of Kerala High Court in Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan
Parvathy (supra), P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon (supra) and
Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai (supra) and of the learned Single
Judges in Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai (supra) and Uma
Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad and others (supra) also do
3
not lay down correct law because the High Court did not appreciate that the
legislature has designedly used different language in Section 40 of the Act
and the term `market value' has not been used therein. The same is true of
the judgments of the learned Single Judges of Mysore and Rajasthan High
Courts noticed hereinabove.
Pachayammal vs Dwaraswamy Pillai on 4 July, 2006
In Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon 1981 KLT 763 a Division Bench of this Court has held that under Section 40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, in suits to set aside sale deeds in respect of immovable property court fee has to be paid on market value of the property on the date of the suit. In that judgment the Division Bench has observed as follows:
Baddukonda Adhilakshmi vs Baddukonda Padmavathi on 15 November, 2022
While
doing so, the Court in Satheedevi case [(2010) 5 SCC 622
: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 490] also opined that the Division
Bench judgments of the Kerala High Court in Krishnan
Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy [1972 KLT 774] ,
P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. K.C. Hari Menon [AIR 1982 Ker 35]
, Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai [(2006) 3 KLT 527]
and the learned Single Judge judgments in Appikunju
Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai [1964 KLT 895] and Uma
Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad [1966 KLT
1046] do not lay down the correct law since the High
Court had failed to appreciate that the legislature has
designedly used a different language in Section 40 of the
Act and the term "market value" has not been used
therein.
Polamrasetti Manikyam & Anr vs Teegala Venkata Ramayya & Anr on 19 February, 2014
While doing so, the Court also opined that
the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Krishnan
Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy 1972 KLT 774, P.K. Vasudeva Rao v.
K.C. Hari Menon AIR 1982 Ker 35, Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai 2006
(3) KLT 527 and the learned Single Judge judgments in Appikunju
Meerasayu v. Meeran 1964 KLT 895 and Uma Antherjanam v. Govindaru
Namboodiripad 1966 KLT 1046 do not lay down the correct law since the
High Court had failed to appreciate that the legislature has
designedly used a different language in Section 40 of the Act and the
term “market value” has not been used therein.
Smt Suguna W/O Madhusudhan Ural vs V Sunil Kumar Holla S/O U Lakshman Holla on 26 April, 2013
We may also observe that if the learned Single Judges felt
that the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench was not
correct, they ought to have referred the matter to the larger
Bench. The judgments of the Division Benches of Kerala
High Court in Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan
Parvathy (supra), P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon, (AIR
1982 Ker 35) (supra) and Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy
Pillai (supra) and of the learned Single Judges in Appikunju
Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai (supra) and Uma Antherjanam v.
Govindaru Namboodiripad and others (supra) also do not
lay down correct law because the High Court did not
appreciate that the legislature has designedly used different
language in Section 40 of the Act and the term `market
value' has not been used therein. The same is true of the
judgments of the learned Single Judges of Mysore and
Rajasthan High Courts noticed hereinabove."
Smt. Narbada vs Smt. Aashi on 21 February, 1986
4. With all respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with the interpretation put by him on the corresponding provisions of Section 40 of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. With respect it may be observed that the words "for which" referred to the property and not to the value of the property relating to which the document said to be cancelled was executed. In my humble opinion, the value of the property for which the document was executed, clearly refers to the market value of the property. Obviously if the plaintiff desires to get rid of his obligation or liability in respect of a document relating to property and prays for cancellation of such document, then he must pay court fees on the money value of such property for which the document was executed. I find support in the view which I have taken from a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in P. K. Vasudeva Rao v. K. C. Hari Menon, AIR 1982 Ker 35 wherein the aforesaid Madras decision was dissented from.
Imortal Infrastructure Pvt vs Lookwell Life Space Pvt And Ors on 8 December, 2011
10. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P.K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. Hari Menon (AIR 1982 Ker 35), the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada Vs. Aashi (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162) held that in a suit for cancellation of decree, the court fee is required to be paid on the market value of the property but the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Sathee Devi (supra) that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada (supra) does not lay down the correct law.
Ammini vs Unknown
Going by the decision in Satheedevi 's case
(supra), it is seen that the Apex Court had overruled
Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy [1972 KLT
774], P.K.Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon [1981 KLT 763],
Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai [2006 (3) KLT 527],
Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai [1964 KLT 895], Uma
Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad and Others [1966
KLT 1046] and Smt.Narbada v. Smt.Aashi [AIR 1987 Rajasthan
162]. In the above decision, the Apex Court held that for
cancellation of decrees, documents, sale deed etc. the
court fee payable is the value shown in the document and
not the market value of the property. Therefore it can be
concluded that the court fee paid by the plaintiff in the
suit is correct and the courts below went wrong by finding
that the court fee paid is insufficient. Thus, the suit is
maintainable before the trial court also. Thus, the
substantial question of law framed in this Appeal is
SA.102/02 :6:
Jamy Kuriakose vs Jomon Kuriakose on 6 September, 2002
In the subsequent decision in Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon (1981 KLT 763) a Division Bench of this Court has held that under Section 40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, in suits to set aside sale deeds in respect of immovable property court fee has to be paid on market value of the property on the date of the suit. In that judgment the Division Bench has observed as follows: