The determination of court fee payable for a suit is based on the allegations in the plaint alone, and the plaintiff must establish the necessary allegations to get the benefit of a specific section of the Act.

Defendants 2 and 3 in OS.No.939/2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad has filed this petition challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent herein filed Ext.P1 suit for declaring the co-ownership right of the plaintiff over plaint A and B schedule properties and for injunction restraining defendants 2 and 3 or their men from trespassing into the plaint A and B schedule properties and preventing the plaintiff from conducting the poojas in the temple in the plaint schedule properties and restraining the first defendant from alienating plaint A and B schedule properties to defendants 2 and 3 or any other person or doing anything meddling with the right of the plaintiff over plaint A and B schedule properties. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff, defendants 1, 4 to 8 are siblings and defendants 9 and 10 are the children of their deceased sister. The second defendant is a distant relative and a member of the Tharavadu of the plaintiff and third defendant is the person helping the first defendant in the temple. Plaint A and B schedule properties were jointly kept in common for the plaintiff and defendants 1, 4 to 8 and their sister who is the mother of defendants 9 and 10 for the purpose of administration of the temple as per Registered Will No.6 dated 30.1.1989 of Sub Registrar Office, Chavakkad by their predecessor Vallassery Narayanan and they were in joint possession of plaint A and B schedule properties for the purpose of administration of the temple. After the death of Narayanan, S/o. Vellassery Pankurakutty they were managing the properties for the purpose of administration of the temple. The property was part of 21 cents in R.Sy.No.156/6 of Thykkad village excluding 10 cents given for kudikiddapu and 3 cents set up for a temple and this is shown as plaint A schedule property. Another 8 cents of property was also set apart for the administration of the temple, which is shown as plaint B schedule property and plaint A and B schedule properties are lying as a single plot bounded by compound wall. The plaintiff's father Narayanan, for the purpose of doing poojas and worship, constructed a temple in 1970 and the plaintiff's father and his family members were doing poojas and lighting lamps in the temple and the plaintiff, defendants 1, 4 to 8, 9 and 10 are in joint possession of the same. Defendants 2 and 3 have no right over plaint A and B schedule properties. The property is having an approximate value of Rs. 22 lakhs. The first defendant is trying to sell the same to defendants 2 and 3 without the consent and knowledge of other members. When the plaintiff went to the property on 10.12.2013 and enquired about the same with the first defendant, he had threatened him and he had also claimed that the paint B schedule property belongs to him exclusively. So that prompted him to file the suit seeking the above reliefs.

3. Court fee was paid under Section 28 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') namely a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- mentioned therein.

4. Defendants 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. It was a frivolous and vexatious suit filed by the plaintiff and he had no locus standi to file the suit as well and the same has to be rejected. They also contended that the property worth more than Rs.22 lakhs but the court fee has been paid only Rs.200/- and the court fee paid is not proper and the court fee has to be paid on the market value of the property and the question regarding court fee has to be decided as a preliminary point. It is also contended that the first defendant is behind the suit. He filed OS.No.1128/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad against these defendants and also filed I.A.5061/2013 for interim injunction which was dismissed by the Munsiff with cost of the respon