Correctness Of Valuation, Court Fees To Be Determined Before Commencement Of Trial: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that when a dispute arises on the correctness of valuation and Court fees to be paid,  it ought to be determined after permitting evidence on the same, before the commencement of trial on merits, due to it being a mixed question of fact and law. 

In the present case, a challenge had been raised regarding the correctness of the valuation and Court fees paid. The Sub-Court concluded that since the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, it could only be determined after trial, and issued an order in that regard, which had been challenged before the High Court. 

"If the Sub Court is of the opinion that the question of valuation and court fee is a mixed question of fact and law, possibly evidence may be permitted on that question and a decision taken accordingly, before commencement of the trial on the merits of the matter, as clarified by the explanation to Section 12," the Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed while setting aside the order. 

The Court at the outset perused Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Section 12(1) states that based on the materials and allegations on the plaint, the Court would have to decide whether proper court fees have been paid, before ordering the plaint to be registered.

It was noted that as per Section 12(2), once the plaint had been registered and the defendant appeared on notice and raked up the issue of improper valuation and insufficient court fee, the same would have to be heard before evidence on the merits of the claim was recorded.

Court observed that the explanation to Section 12 further clarified that merits of the claim refer to matters which arise for determination in the suit, not being matters relating to the frame of the suit, misjoinder parties and causes of action, but inclusive of matters arising on the plea of res judicata, limitation and the like. 

It thus proceeded to observe that the view taken by the Sub-Judge to decide the issue of court fees after trial was illegal since Sections 12 (1) and (2) specifically mandate that such issue ought to be decided before commencement of the trial 'on merits'. 

Upon determining that the issue would thus have to be decided before the commencement of trial, the Court set aside the order of the Sub-Judge.

It accordingly directed the Sub-Judge to consider the matter in accordance with law, particularly Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and disposed of the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Alias M. Cherian, Minnu Darwin, Ameera Jojo, K.M. Raphy, and Bristo S. Pariyaram

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Manu Vyasan Peter, P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, and B. Anusree

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 707

Case Title: Kiran Kurian Mathew v. Ashly Mathew & Anr. 

Case Number: OP(C) NO. 2296 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment