Case Summary
Murukesh Shenoy is the plaintiff seeking a declaration and injunction against Hemalatha B and Rema Shenoy, the defendants, regarding property rights based on a family arrangement. The defendants contest the suit, claiming it lacks legal basis.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is directed to amend the plaint within 14 days and pay the corrected court fee thereafter within 7 days.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partly allowed the petition, determining that the suit was undervalued and directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to reflect the correct court fee.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established that the suit was undervalued, necessitating an amendment to properly reflect court fees.
The plaintiff established that the suit was undervalued, necessitating an amendment to properly reflect court fees.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established that the suit was undervalued, necessitating an amendment to properly reflect court fees.
The plaintiff established that the suit was undervalued, necessitating an amendment to properly reflect court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioners have submitted that no such arrangement was ever acted upon, and the ownership and possession of the plaint A and B schedule properties rests solely with the petitioners by virtue of a Will No. 344/2006 as well as Settlement Deed No. 1685/2017.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence the substance of the suit is with respect to immovable property including building, which is capable of valuation under section 7(3) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, and it is found that the suit is undervalued under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil procedure. Thus this court find merit in the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee. Hence point No.1 is found in part in favour of the petitioners.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Murukesh Shenoy
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Hemalatha B
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rema Shenoy
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sabu Thozhuppadan K.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Devi P. Prathapan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ajwin P. Lalson
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- B.M. Ajith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The respondent/plaintiff is directed to amend the plaint and pay the court fee accordingly.
Evidence:
The plaint has to be valued and court fee paid under Section 7(3) of the Kerala Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2018