Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
JAYACHANDRAN.K.M – Appellant
Versus
E.K.RAJAGOPAL – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1471 OF 2022|OS NO.199 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
The decree against a lunatic without proper representation is void, making a prayer for declaration valid without needing a cancellation request.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 25(d)(ii) and Section 40 - The court examined the appropriate valuation and court fee required for the declaratory suit filed by the petitioner, originally deemed invalid due to a mental condition at the time of execution of a gift deed, determining that a decree against a lunatic without proper representation is void and does not necessitate cancellation. (Paras 2-9)
(B) Suit Maintenance - The court clarified that the suit's maintenance without a prayer for cancellation is permissible if a party's mental competency to engage in legal deeds is in question. (Paras 3-9)
(C) Court Fee - The court ruled that the categorization of the suit under the correct sections of the Act for payment of court fees is vital and remanded this aspect for further consideration. (Paras 6-7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's mental illness during deed execution. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court fee disputes and their implications on suit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal context of lunacy and declaration suits. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's ruling on proper fee assessment. (Para 9) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947 OP(C) NO. 1471 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED IN ISSUE NO.2 IN OS NO.199 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
JAYACHANDRAN.K.M AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUMARAN, RESIDING AT JAYA NIVAS, P.O.CHOVA, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670006 BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 E.K.RAJAGOPAL AGED 77 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, HOUSE NO: 18, A .K. G.NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, KAKAKD ROAD, P.O.KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN -
670002(DIED)
2 E.K.JASHEENA AGED 43 YEARS, W/O PRAMOD, HOUSE NO: 18, A .K.
G.NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, KAKAKD ROAD, P.O.KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
3 E.K.JESHMA AGED 41 YEARS, W/O SANAD, HOUSE NO: 18, A.K.G.NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, KAKAKD ROAD, P.O.KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN - 670002 *(RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RECORDED VIDE MEMO DATED 15.10.2022, AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 31.10.2022)
BY ADV SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.199 of 2018 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur. The suit is filed by the petitioner seeking declaration and injunction stating that he was mentally ill at the time of executing Ext.P2 gift deed. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. The suit was valued under Section 25 (d)(ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (the Act).
2. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement. In the written statement, they have not raised any contention regarding the valuation and court fee paid by the petitioner. However, subsequently, the respondents raised dispute regarding the valuation and court fee. The trial court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff was not having disposing state of mind due to mental illness while exacting Gift deeds bearing No.226/16 and 227/16 dated 28-01-2016 of SRO, Kannur as alleged by the plaintiff?
2. Whether the valuation shown and court fee paid for the relief of declaration are correct?
3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to get relief of declaration as prayed for?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get injunction as prayed for?
5. Reliefs and costs?
6. Whether the suit without a prayer for cancellation is maintainable?
(underline supplied)
3. When the matter was heard on 26.03.2022, the trial court found that the court fee paid by the petitioner under Section 25 (d)(ii) of the Act is not proper and the petitioner was directed to pay the court fee under Section 40 of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner has not been issued with a copy of the said order, though he applied for the same. The relevant extract from Ext.P5 order sheet reads thus:
“26.03.2022 Both sides represented. Court fee has to be paid for the relief of declaration u/s40 of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and the court fee paid u/s 25 of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act is not proper. Plaintiff is directed to pay the balance court fee.
Call on 30.05.2022.
Sd/-
Munsiff.”
According to the petitioner, he has paid the proper court fee and the finding of the trial court recorded in Ext.P5 order sheet is incorrect. This original petition is filed seeking to set aside the order passed in issue No.2 dated 26.03.2022 in the suit.
4. Heard Sri. Rajesh V. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran, the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Sri.Rajesh v. Nair relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Pankajaksha Kuru
