How to determine court fees in suit for mandatory injunction for return of cheque?

The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction,

directing the defendant to return the cheques allegedly

issued by the plaintiff as security. The suit is not one for a

declaration that the plaintiff has already paid the amount due

to the defendant covered by the cheques in question.

Therefore 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.

     2. The plaintiff has a contention that he has already

paid Rs.1,05,000/- due to the defendant and that the sum of

Rs.2,40,000/- shown in both the cheques together is not the

correct amount.    These are all incidental questions to be

considered by the court below in the matter of granting the

relief of mandatory injunction sought for. But the plaintiff


has not sought for any declaration to that effect and

therefore there is no necessity to pay the court fee under

Section 25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation

Act, 1959.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

          MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

    11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

                   CRP.No. 65 of 2012 

        SIJU PAUL Vs T.V.SUBASH,
        


     The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction,

directing the defendant to return the cheques allegedly

issued by the plaintiff as security. The suit is not one for a

declaration that the plaintiff has already paid the amount due

to the defendant covered by the cheques in question.

Therefore 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.

     2. The plaintiff has a contention that he has already

paid Rs.1,05,000/- due to the defendant and that the sum of

Rs.2,40,000/- shown in both the cheques together is not the

correct amount.    These are all incidental questions to be

considered by the court below in the matter of granting the

relief of mandatory injunction sought for. But the plaintiff


has not sought for any declaration to that effect and

therefore there is no necessity to pay the court fee under

Section 25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation

Act, 1959. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in

Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd Vs. Chief

Inspector of Stamps, U.P (A.I.R 968 SC 102) and in

Sathyavrathan Vs. The Manager, Indian Overseas

Bank (1988 (1) KLT 553).

     The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.

Print Page