MOHAMMED HAJI Vs. KUNHAHAMMED MUSALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is one for partition of two items of property . The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers . The court fee was paid under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act asserting joint possession. The defendant contented in his written statement staked exclusive right over item No.2 property . He contended that he has obtained certificate of purchase in O.A No.12816/1975 from the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam. The defendant in short contended that item No.2 property is not partible.

(2.) THE plaintiff thereupon filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff pointed out that the certificate of purchase is not binding on him. He also valued the relief under Section 25(d) (ii) of the Court Fees Act. The court below has by the order impugned held that the plaintiff has to value the suit under Section 25 (d) (i) of the the Court Fees Act.

(3.) THE plaintiff was therefore obliged to pay court fee under Section 25(d) 2 of the Court Fees Act. A reference to the decision in Usman Kurikkal vs. Parappur Achuthan Nair (2012 (3) KLT 261) is apposite. The plaintiff has valued the amendment plaint at Rs. 1,000/- for this prayer. The valuation of the plaint is proper under the circumstances. Ext.P5 order in O.S No.30/2006 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate of Pattambi is set aside.