Court Fee In A Suit Seeking Cancellation Of Document To Be Computed Based On Value Shown In The Document: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently established that when cancellation or declaration of a document as null and void is sought for, the court fee shall be paid valuing the same on the basis of the value shown in the document as long as the subject matter is capable of valuation.

However, Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that in a suit for partition seeking a declaration that a settlement deed is invalid or not valid, a separate court fee is not necessary for the said declaration. 

A suit was filed by one of the respondents herein seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds before a Munsiff court.

Thereafter the plaint was amended and 2 more prayers AA and AB were incorporated. But by way of amendment, the subject matter was valued at Rs.1,000/- each and a court fee to the tune of Rs.40/- each was paid under Section 25(d) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

Since the defendants in the plaint objected to this, the Munsiff raised an additional issue to decide the question of valuation and court fee. However, the Munsiff found the valuation and court fee paid to be correct.

Some of the defendants in the plaint were aggrieved by this order and thereby moved the High Court assailing the same.

Advocates Sajan Vargheese, Liju M.P and Jophy Pothen Kandankary appeared for the petitioners argued that since the subject matter is capable of valuation and the plaintiff valued the market value of the property based on its annual income at Rs.5,40,000/-, the plaintiff shall have to pay court fee in accordance with the said valuation. 

Advocates Rajesh Sivaramankutty and Arul Muralidharan appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no need to pay court fee on the basis of the market value of the property and the valuation and the court fee paid in this matter were correct.

The Court noted that in Sankaran v. Velukkutty [1986 KLT 794], it was held that in a suit for partition with prayer for a declaration that a settlement deed is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff or plaint schedule properties, a separate court fee is not necessary for the said declaration. Applying the said ratio, it was found that no court fee is payable for relief `AB'.

Section 25(d)(ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act provides that in a suit for a declaratory decree where the subject matter of the suit is not capable of valuation, the fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher.

It has no application to the present case since the subject matter herein is capable of valuation as admitted by the plaintiffs as being the agricultural annual income derived from the plaint schedule property.

Thus, it appears that when cancellation or declaration of a document as null and void is sought for, except in a suit for partition, court fee shall be paid valuing the same on the basis of the value shown in the document. 

Here the total extent of the property described in the plaint schedule is 36.833 acres, out of which, 12.15 acres is covered by the purchase certificate relating to the relief AA. Similarly, 14.42 acres is covered by the certificate relating to `AB' relief.

In this context, the petitioners submitted that, for `AA' relief, the amount corresponding to Rs.5,40,000/- in respect of 12.15 acres of property was to be paid under Section 25(d)(i). Similarly, it was submitted that for the 12.42 acres of property relating to `AB' relief, the value corresponding to the said extent of land in tune with Rs.5,40,000/- shall have to be paid under Section 25(d)(i).

However, the Court was not inclined to accept this contention in relation to `AB' relief. Since the relief `AB' is one covered by the ratio in Sankaran v. Velukkutty's case (supra), no specific court fee was payable to the said relief.

Regarding `AA' relief, the same is pertaining to 12.15 acres of land and therefore the plaintiff shall have to pay the court fee after assessing the valuation in consonance with the total valuation of Rs.5,40,000/- under Section 25(d)(i). Therefore, the order of the Munsiff holding otherwise required interference and the order was accordingly set aside.

The Munsiff was directed to re-consider the impugned order and pass a fresh order after considering this point.

Case Title: Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

Click Here To Read/Download The Order