2019 ICO 212

High Court of Kerala

Decided on 14-02-2019
Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy & Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar
Shibi A A & Ors
Vs.
Union of India & Ors
Case Numbers : W. P. (C) No. 28093 of 2018, W. P. (C) No. 28198 of 2018, W. P. (C)
No. 28496 of 2018, W. P. (C) No. 29127 of 2018, W. P. (C) No. 40859 of 2018

Equivalents : 2019 (1) KHC 744 :: 2019 (1) KLD 366

Refers to :-
2007 ICO 65742015 ICO 1487
Headnotes
A. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 - The right of a flood or a landslide
victim to relief from the Government has been recognized as an integral facet of the
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution ( Para 6 )
B. Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 – Section 22C - The services provided in
connection with relief rehabilitation measures to flood/landslide victims as a public
utility service. ( Para 8 )
C. Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 – Section 22C - Even no notification to be
issued by the State Government, for any urgent situation, the Permanent Lok
Adalat already established within the State be treated as the final level Appellate
Authority in the Grievance Redressal Mechanism already put in place by the State
( Para 8 )
D. Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 – Section 22C - The Aggrieved persons can
approach the Permanent Lok Adalat against any adverse order passed by the first
Appellate Authority, namely, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA),
shall prefer their appeals before the Permanent Lok Adalat within 60 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order from the District Disaster Management
Authority ( Para 9 )

2019 ICO 25
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 15-01-2019
Justice T V Anil Kumar & Justice C K Abdul Rehim
Sabu Edward
Vs.
Santhosh & Ors
Case Numbers : O.P.(FC) No.295 of 2018

Equivalents : 2019 (1) KHC 302 :: 2019 (1) KLT 408 :: 2019 (1) KLJ 575

Headnotes
A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 21 and 19 – In the mediation
agreement, the husband had transferred his rights in the property in the name of
the minor daughters and wife had to transfer her part of the joint interest in the
name of minor daughters at the time of marriage. When the daughter became
major they sold the property. Held; The sale cannot be constructed as violation of
mediation agreement, when sale has taken place at the voluntary disposition of
beneficiaries. ( Para 11 )
B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 21 and 19 - The stipulations in a
mediation agreement are to be comprehended and construed in such a manner as
giving effect to the true spirit of the consensus arrived at between parties to the
agreement. Once mediation agreement is found to be lawfully and voluntarily
executed, any interpretation that does not help to promote or foster the ultimate
object or goal of the settlement requires only to be discarded. ( Para 13 )
2018 ICO 2595
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 18-12-2018
Justice Sathish Ninan
Mahesh
Vs.
Padmakumar
Case Numbers : C.R.P. No. 431 of 2018

Equivalents : 2019 (1) KLT 330

Headnotes
A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21 - In terms of Section 21 of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the award passed by the Lok Adalath is a
decree and can be executed. ( Para 2 )
2018 ICO 2658
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 06-12-2018
Justice N Anil Kumar
Thara
Vs.
Manju
Case Numbers : O.P.(C). No. 1901 of 2018

Equivalents : 2019 (1) KLT 429

Headnotes
A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 20(1) and 21 - The memorandum
of settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be treated as a deemed decree,
this can only be treated as a compromise between the parties pursuant to the
mediation effected between the parties. ( Para 8 )
B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987- Sections 20(1) and 21 - Court is obliged to
consider as to whether the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties
pursuant to the mediation can be acted upon. ( Para 8 )
2018 ICO 1805
Supreme Court of India
Decided on 14-08-2018
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre & Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Imitiyaz Ramzan Khan & Anr
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr
Case Numbers : S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6740 of 2018, S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6747 of 2018

Equivalents : 2018 (4) KHC 878 :: (2018) 9 SCC 160 :: 2018 (2) KLD 615

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21- Right to Legal Aid and Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 4 and 7 – Need for interaction between lawyer and
accused in case of free legal aid programme - Direction issued to facilitate dialogue
between the counsel and his client. Also directed to all Legal Services
Authorities/Committees in every State to extend similar such facility in every
criminal case wherever the Accused is lodged in jail. They shall extend the facility
of video conferencing between the counsel on one hand and the Accused or anybody
in the know of the matter on the other, so that the cause of justice is well served
( Paras 4 & 5 )
2018 ICO 1329
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 31-07-2018
Justice A Muhamed Mustaque
New India Assurance Company Limited
Vs.
Jebby M Aliyar & Anr
Case Numbers : W.P.(C).No. 7876 of 2007

Equivalents : 2018 (4) KHC 199 :: 2018 (3) KLT 827 :: ILR 2018 (3) Ker. 903 :: AIR
2018 Ker 181

Refers to :-
2008 ICO 35402011 ICO 5692012 ICO 850
Headnotes
A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Object and scope – The Legal Services
Authorities Act was enacted to provide free and competent legal service to the
weaker sections of the society and to organise Lok Adalath to promote justice on
the basis of equal opportunity. ( Para 7 )
B. Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 7, 8, 22A and 22C(8) – Permanent
Lok Adalath – Authority of the Permanent Lok Adalath in deciding a dispute as
contemplated under Section 22C(8) discussed ( Para 14 )
C. Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 7, 8, 22A and 22C(8) – Whether
the Permanent Lok Adalath has jurisdiction to decide a dispute with respect to
validity of a contract – Held: Whether the contract is vitiated or not cannot be gone
into through the enquiry of the Permanent Lok Adalath. ( Para 15 )
2018 ICO 1329
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 31-07-2018
Justice A Muhamed Mustaque
New India Assurance Company Limited
Vs.
Jebby M Aliyar & Anr
Case Numbers : W.P.(C).No. 7876 of 2007

Equivalents : 2018 (4) KHC 199 :: 2018 (3) KLT 827 :: ILR 2018 (3) Ker. 903 :: AIR
2018 Ker 181

Refers to :-
2008 ICO 35402011 ICO 5692012 ICO 850
Headnotes
A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Object and scope – The Legal Services
Authorities Act was enacted to provide free and competent legal service to the
weaker sections of the society and to organise Lok Adalath to promote justice on
the basis of equal opportunity. ( Para 7 )
B. Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 7, 8, 22A and 22C(8) – Permanent
Lok Adalath – Authority of the Permanent Lok Adalath in deciding a dispute as
contemplated under Section 22C(8) discussed ( Para 14 )
C. Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 7, 8, 22A and 22C(8) – Whether
the Permanent Lok Adalath has jurisdiction to decide a dispute with respect to
validity of a contract – Held: Whether the contract is vitiated or not cannot be gone
into through the enquiry of the Permanent Lok Adalath. ( Para 15 )
2018 ICO 1248
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 11-06-2018
Justice B Sudheendra Kumar
Venugoapaln Nair
Vs.
Uma Balakumar & Anr
Case Numbers : O.P.(Crl.) No. 72 of 2018

Equivalents : 2018 (4) KHC 6 :: 2018 (3) KLT 618 :: 2018 (2) KLD 265 :: 2018 (3)
KLJ 824 :: ILR 2018 (3) Ker. 857

Headnotes
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 – Section 21(2) – In case of settlement of any matter relating to Section
138 of the N.I. Act, the Lok Adalath must ensure that the entire amount settled
between the parties has been paid before passing the award. If some period is
needed for the payment of the amount as agreed by the parties, the Lok Adalath
shall adjourn the matter and only if the payment is made, the award can be passed.
( Para 8 )
B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 21(2) – The Lok Adalath must
take care to ensure that no party shall be put in trouble by passing the award
casually and mechanically, simply for the statistical purpose. ( Para 8 )
2018 ICO 2624
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 06-12-2018
Justice K Harilal & Justice Annie John
Sulaikha
Vs.
Raghavan
Case Numbers : Unnumbered R.F.A. No. of 2018

Equivalents : 2019 (1) KHC 421 :: 2019 (1) KLJ 801

Headnotes
A. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 52 and 6(3) - Court
fee for alternate relief not paid by the Plaintiff. On a combined reading of the
proviso to Sections 6(3) and 52 of the Act, the fee that would be payable by the
defendant for an appeal, challenging a decree granting a lesser alternative relief
shall be the fee payable in the first instance, if that relief alone was prayed for, and
not alternatively. Explanation (3) to Section 52 of the Act, also would come into
play and the court-fee is payable accordingly. ( Para 5 )
2018 ICO 1305
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 04-07-2018
Justice Ashok Menon
K O Thomas
Vs.
Biju
Case Numbers : O.P.(C).No. 3259 of 2017

Equivalents : 2018 (3) KLT 624

Refers to :-
1969 ICO 6121960 ICO 2121953 ICO 1141996 ICO 42852003 ICO 71312017 ICO
1894
Headnotes
A. Kerala Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 76 (1) – An additional
court fee under the amended provisions of 76(1) of Kerala Court Fee and Suits
Valuation Act, 1959 which came in to force on 07/04/2016 has to be paid in respect
of an appeal that has been filled in the year 2013. ( Paras 2 & 3 )

2018 ICO 344

High Court of Kerala
Decided on 03-04-2018
Justice P N Ravindran & Justice R Narayana Pisharadi
P K Kuriakose
Vs.
Asgar Shakoor Patel & Ors
Case Numbers : F.A.O. No. 88 of 2017

Equivalents : 2018 (2) KHC 473 :: 2018 (2) KLJ 387 :: ILR 2018 (2) Ker. 376 :: 2018
(2) KLT 735

Refers to :-
2001 ICO 3511972 ICO 2262006 ICO 58382008 ICO 118002011 ICO 9502015 ICO
686
Headnotes
A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIII Rule 1 and Kerala Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 4A - Court fee is payable on the valuation
of the suit as on the date of the suit, at such rate of fee liable to be paid as on the
date of the suit. ( Para 13 )
B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIII, Rule 1 and Kerala Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 4A - Suit for money – At the time of
institution of the suit, the Plaintiff paid one-tenth of the court fee payable by him –
When the Court directed the Plaintiff to pay the balance court fee, the Plaintiff
filed an application for granting him permission to continue the suit as an indigent
person – Whether petition maintainable? – Held: Plaintiff who instituted the suit
after paying one – tenth court fee as per Section 4A of the Court Fees Act may also
claim the benefit of Order 33 of the Code, if it is found subsequently that he is
unable to pay the balance court fee. ( Para 13 )
C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIII, Rule 1 and Kerala Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 4A - The Plaintiff has to prove change of
circumstances and all other relevant facts so as to claim exemption from paying the
balance court fee at the stage when it becomes payable. ( Para 14 )
D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIII, Rule 1 and Kerala Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 4A - If the Plaintiff has fraudulently sold
the property after the institution of the suit and diverted the money without paying
the balance court fee, then the application filed by him for granting permission to
sue as an indigent person is liable to be dismissed. ( Para 14 )
E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIII, Rules 1 and 3 and Kerala Court
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 4A - Institution of Suit as an indigent
person – Capacity to raise money and not actual possession of funds is what the
court has to look into. Capacity to raise funds could cover all forms of realisable
assets, which a person could in the normal circumstances convert into cash and
utilise for the litigation without detriment to his normal existence. ( Para 21 )
2018 ICO 330
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 27-03-2018
Justice A Hariprasad
Sree Lekshmi Narasimha Moorthy & Anr
Vs.
State of Kerala & Anr
Case Numbers : O.P.(C) No. 2532 of 2016

Equivalents : 2018 (2) KHC 426 :: 2018 (2) KLJ 692 :: 2018 (2) KLT SN 77 (Case No.
98)

Refers to :-
1960 ICO 7041971 ICO 9211988 ICO 4091967 ICO 1151999 ICO 32561966 ICO
11721960 ICO 12672017 ICO 18981916 ICO 21883 ICO 11917 ICO 11911 ICO 11934
ICO 311948 ICO 381934 ICO 321949 ICO 114
Headnotes
A. Hindu Law – Whether suit instituted by the next friends on behalf of the deities
maintainable? – Held: Legal competence of the next friends to institute the suit on
behalf of the deities is unchallengeable. ( Para 14 )
B. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 30 – Applicability of
Section 30 – Held: Section 30 is a residuary provision and it becomes applicable
only on finding that no other provision could be applied to a given case. ( Para 15 )
C. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 28 – Section 28
applies to suit for possession of trust property or for a declaratory decree, whether
with or without any consequential relief in respect of it, between the trustees and a
person who has ceased to be a trustee. ( Para 15 )
D. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Sections 28 & 30 – Valuation
for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees shall be determined on the basis of the
plaint averments. ( Para 16 )
E. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 12(5) – Section 12 (5)
would come into play only in a case where the defendant had filed a written
statement. ( Para 17 )
F. Civil Law – Dependent orders – The term “dependant orders” therefore can be
expressed with certitude as orders whose operation will depend on the outcome of a
challenge against an earlier order. In a given case, when an order passed by an
inferior court is challenged before a superior court and on setting aside the order, if
it results in substance undoing the consequences that followed the non-compliance
of the impugned order, then the order following the impugned one is said to be a
dependant order. ( Paras 23 & 24 )
2017 ICO 1898
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 25-10-2017
Justice K Surendra Mohan & Justice A Hariprasad & Justice Mary Joseph
Victoria
Vs.
Yesuraj Kumar & Ors
Case Numbers : R.F.A. No. 3 of 2017, Z.R.F.A. No.39 of 2017

Equivalents : 2017 (4) KLJ 909 :: 2017 (4) KLT 936 :: 2017 (5) KHC 319 :: ILR 2017
(4) Ker. 667 :: AIR 2018 Ker 27

Refers to :-
1968 ICO 6082001 ICO 63412001 ICO 4241970 ICO 3291957 ICO 102007 ICO
16371982 ICO 7431984 ICO 8591970 ICO 13422012 ICO 17691919 ICO 21939 ICO
401953 ICO 5731941 ICO 371944 ICO 231943 ICO 251946 ICO 221931 ICO 13
Mentioned in :-
2018 ICO 330
Headnotes
A. Codeof Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 16, 20 & 26 – Subject matter –
Meaning– In general, the expression ‘subject matter’ has a reference to a right in
theproperty, which the plaintiff seeks to enforce and, therefore, it includes thecause
of action and the relief claimed. (Para 33)
B. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 37(2) – The
expression‘joint family property’ occurring in Section 37 has no significance on
accountof the disruption of Hindu joint families by Kerala Joint Hindu
Family(Abolition) Act, 1975 – The expression ‘joint family property’ occurring
inSection 37 has become superfluous in the State. (Para 44)
C. CivilLaw – Suit for partition – A suit for partition can be filed only by a
personhaving a pre-existing title over the property, which includes possession,either
actual or constructive. (Para 46)
D. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Sections 37(2) & 53(1) –
Section53(1) does not deal with a case falling under Section 37(2). (Para 53)
E. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Sections 37(2) & 53(2) –
‘Marketvalue’ mentioned in Section 53(2) can only be the market value of the
subjectmatter – Subject matter in a suit for partition is not the property involved
inthe suit and the same can be the right of the plaintiff in the property, whichthe
plaintiff seeks to enforce – It includes the cause of action and thereliefs claimed.
(Para 54)
F. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Sections 7(4), 37(2) & 53(2) –
The observation in Maimu v. Beebi (1971 KLT 741 :: 1970 ICO 1342) that a suit
wherein Court fee ispayable under Section 37(2) will be governed by Section 7(4) is
not the correctproposition of law.(Para 57)
G. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 37(2) – The legal logic
thatvalue of the plaintiff's share determines the value for the purpose ofjurisdiction
of the Court is sound and rests on the foundation of establishedlegal principles.
(Para 59)
H. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 37(2) – In a suit
forpartition, where the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of theproperty
along with other sharers, value of the subject matter for the purposeof determining
pecuniary jurisdiction is the value of the plaintiff's sharementioned in the plaint.
(Para 70)
I. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Sections 7, 37(2) & 53(2) – In
asuit wherein Court fee has to be paid under Section 37(2), jurisdiction valueshall
be decided in accordance with the provisions in Section 53(2), andSection 7 has no
application in such a suit.(Para 70)
J. Codeof Civil procedure, 1908 – Section 21(2) and Kerala Court Fees and
SuitsValuation Act, 1959 – If no challenge is made by a defendant regarding
thepecuniary jurisdiction at the first opportunity, the Court cannot entertainsuch a
contention at a later point of time.(Para 70)
K. KeralaCourt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – No party to a suit can show
avaluation of his choice, different from that is shown in the decree, in orderto file
an appeal before a forum of his convenience or liking. (Para 71)
2017 ICO 1214
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 12-07-2017
Justice P Somarajan
Krishnankutty & Anr
Vs.
Mohammed @ Mani & Ors
Case Numbers : O.P.(C) No. 2731 of 2013

Equivalents : 2017 (3) KLT 1073 :: AIR 2018 (NOC) Ker 472

Headnotes
A. Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 – Section 27(c)- Therelief sought
in the plaint, being a mandatory injunction to re-fill theexcavated portion of the
plaintiff's property, cannot be brought undereither sub-clauses (i) or (ii) to clause
(a) to Section 27 of the Act.Necessarily, the suit would come under the purview of
Section 27(c) of the Actin exclusion of clauses (a) and (b) to that Section, wherein
the question ofwhat would be the market value of the property does not arise. So,
issuance ofa Commission for that purpose is not permissible. (Para 8)
2016 ICO 704
High Court of Kerala
Decided on 26-08-2016
Justice K Ramakrishnan
V K Baburaj
Vs.
Roads And Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Limited & Ors
Case Numbers : O.P.(C) No. 2119 of 2016
Equivalents : 2016 (4) KLJ 370 :: 2016 (5) KHC 917 :: 2017 (1) KLT SN 34 (Case No.
37)

Headnotes
A. Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1959 – Sections 4A and Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Section 149 – Payment of Balance Court Fee – Whether the
Court has power to extend time for payment of balance Court fee beyond 30 days
under S.149 of the Code? – Held: Courts can grant extension of time for payment
of Balance Court Fee beyond the period of 30 days in appropriate cases. (Para 9)