Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Kiran Kurian Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Ashly Mathew C, W/o Roy, D/o C.K. Mathai –Respondent
OP(C) No. 2296 of 2023
Decided on : 14-11-2023
Court Fees - Proper Court Fee - Interpretation of Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
Fact of the Case:
The court considered an order that relegated the objection to proper court fee to be considered after trial, but as the first issue before deciding other issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order was not in line with the mandate under Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which directs the court to decide on proper court fee based on the materials and allegations on the plaint before ordering the plaint to be registered.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and whether the question of proper court fee should be decided before or after trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 12(1) mandates the court to decide on proper court fee before ordering the plaint to be registered, and Section 12(2) requires the issue of improper valuation and insufficient court fee to be heard before evidence on the merits of the claim is recorded.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order and directed the matter to be considered in accordance with law, especially Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
JUDGMENT :
Ext.P7 order is under challenge in this Original Petition, as per which, an objection to the question of proper court fee to be levied was relegated to be considered after trial, but as the first issue before deciding other issues.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that Ext.P7 order is not in terms of the mandate under Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Section 12(1) directs that, the court has to decide, based on the materials and allegations on the plaint, whether proper court fee thereon has been paid, which has to be done even before ordering the plaint to be registered. Once the plaint is registered and the defendant appears on notice and rakes up the issue of improper valuation and insufficient court fee, the same has to be heard, going by Section 12(2), before evidence on merits of the claim is recorded. Explanation to Section 12 clarifies that merits of the claim refers to matters which arise for determination in the suit, not being matters relating to the frame of the suit, mis joinder parties and causes of action, but inclusive of matters arising on plea of res judicata, limitation and the like. In the order under challenge, the learned Sub Judge finds that an issue has already been raised on the correctness of the valuation and Court fee paid, that the issue involves a mixed question of law and facts and that the issue could be decided only after trial. Thereafter, the learned Sub Judge finds that, the issue can be decided after trial, as the first issue, before addressing the remaining issues. It appears that the course adopted by the learned Sub Judge is not legal, when section 12 (1) & (2) specifically mandate that such issue has to be decided before commencement of the trial 'on merits'. 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.
In such circumstances, Ext.P7 order is set aside. The matter will be considered by the learned Sub Judge in accordance with law, especially Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
The main legal principle established is that under Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the court must decide on proper court fee before ordering the plaint to be registered a....
A court must address court fee sufficiency before evaluating the merits of a claim, per statutory provisions preventing post-evidence challenges.
Point of law: Court Fee - It is evident that the Court has to find cut that the claim is under valued. Then at least require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and fix a time to pay deficit Court....
Defendants may raise issues regarding improper valuation or insufficient court fees through an application before the first hearing, even if a written statement has not been filed.
The direction to correct the valuation under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 is not revisable under Section 115 CPC.
The duty of the Civil Court and first appellate Court to decide the amount of Court-fees payable and the power of the first appellate Court to adjudicate the issue of Court-fees in the appeal.
Question to be decided in such an appeal was only the propriety of the order of the trial court rejecting the plaint for want of payment of the balance court fees within the permitted time
The issue of proper court fees being paid is essentially an issue between the plaintiff and the State, and the defendant cannot be termed as an 'aggrieved party' to invoke the revisional jurisdiction....
In suits for declaration without consequential relief, court fees must be calculated based on the market value of the property as of the date of plaint presentation, not the value stated in the docum....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
