Abhijeet vs Ramachandra and another. 100125/2018 decided on 28 August 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/339894/1/CRP100125-18-28-08-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contends that because the challenge is not just to the sale deed but also to the power of attorney executed by the first respondent, it would tantamount seeking cancellation of the power of attorney as well as the sale deed and therefore the suit should be valued under Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act as per the consideration for which the sale deed is executed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner elaborates canvassing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna and Another 2010 AIR SCW 3754 has held that the expression “value of the subject matter of the suit” as found in the provisions of Section 40 of the Kerala Court- Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (which is pari materia with Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act) should be understood as the ‘value for which the document is executed’. As such, the expression ‘market value’ as found in Section 7(2) of the KCF & SV Act should also, wherever the provisions of Section 38 thereof apply, should be read as “value for which the document is executed” as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
11. The entire controversy as regards the valuation of the suit and the payment of proper court fee will have to be examined from the perspective of the nature of the subject property which is in lis between the petitioner and the respondents.
12.The provisions of Section 7 of the KCF & SV Act stipulate that where the fee payable under this Act depends on the ‘market value’ of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the suit; and insofar as the land which forms part of the estate paying permanently settled annual revenue to the Government, the market value of the land for the different suits mentioned therein shall be twenty-five times the revenue payable. This different mode of determining the market value insofar as the agricultural land under Section 7 of the KCF & SV Act is applicable not only to the reliefs that will have to be valued under Section 24 and other provisions of the KCF & SV Act but also under Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act.
14…..the case on hand before this Court could be distinguished insofar as the applicability of the enunciation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision inasmuch as the significance of a separate mode for valuation in cases of lands which are assessed to annual revenue as provided under Section 7 of the KCF & SV Act was not a subject matter for decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. The subject matter in this case is admittedly an agricultural land. The provisions of Section 7(2) of the KCF & SV Act provide for a separate mode for valuation for different suits insofar as agricultural lands which are assessed for annual revenue. This modes applies to even a suit for cancellation as is obvious from the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the KCF & SV Act of sale deed; and the interpretation the expression market value as found in Section 7 of the KCF & SV Act should be read as the valuation for which a document is executed will amount to rendering the provisions of Section 7(2) of the KCF & SV Act, and therefore the entire scheme thereunder, otiose. This would be against the settled canon that an interpretation which renders a statutory provision otiose should be avoided while interpreting a provision of the statute.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 