Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
ANTONY.P.CYRIAC – Appellant
Versus
MEENA PRINCE – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1692 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SASI M.R., SMT.LATHA JAYARAJ, SHRI.REGHU SREEDHARAN, SMT.MINI SAMUEL, SMT.DHARMYA M.S
For the Respondents: MR. PERUMTHARA P.PRINCE
The characterization of land as agricultural impacts court fee valuation under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Headnote:This judgment examines the valuation of an agricultural land in relation to court fees under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The petitioner challenged an order directing revaluation based on market conditions, with the court holding that agricultural characterization under Section 7(2) is valid given case specifics, ultimately overturning the lower court's ruling. It concludes with the allowance of the original petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order regarding valuation of agricultural land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about proper valuation under the court fees act. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of agricultural land valuation regs. (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P (C) No.1692 of 2020 ---------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025 JUDGMENT The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P2 order dated
16.03.2020 in O.S No.5/2019 passed by the Additional District Court-V, Palakkad, directing the plaintiff to value the suit by calculating the market value of the plaint schedule property as per Section 7 (3A) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the land involved is agricultural land and therefore, the valuation is to be made under Section 7 (2) of the Act. The petitioner/plaintiff originally filed Probate O.P No.119/2018 to probate the will dated 18.06.2007 executed by his father. The respondents contested the matter. Therefore, the Original Petition was converted as Original Suit.
4. The petitioner filed a valuation statement pleading that the property is agricultural land. The suit was valued under Section 7 (2) of the Act. The Court below came to the conclusion that the plaint averments do not reveal that the property is agricultural land and the title deed is silent about it. The learned District Judge also recorded the finding that the valuation statement would show that no agricultural operation is being carried out in the property.
5. The impugned order reads thus:
“ORDER Heard both sides.
2. Dispute is regarding the suit valuation. There is nothing to show that plaint schedule property is an agricultural land. Plaint averments doesn't prove this. The title deed is also silent about it. The valuation statement now produced will also go to show that no agricultural operations is being carried out in the property.
3. As such, the computation of market value under sec. 7(2) of the court fees and suit valuations Act, cannot be accepted. The property is to be valued as per Sec. 7(3A) of the Act, that is the market value of the property shall be the value it will fetch on the date of institution of suit.
4. Plaintiff produced the fair value extract. Fair value fixed for the property comprised in this particular survey no. is Rs.2178 per are (Rs. 881 per cent). At any rate, the property will fetch a value of Rs. 1,000/- per cent as on the date of suit. Therefore the market value is to be fixed at the minimum of Rs. 1,000/- per cent.
5. In the result, Plaintiff is directed to value the suit by calculating the market value of the plaint schedule property as per Sec. 7 (3A) of the Act, which shall not be less that Rs. 1,000/- per cent.
6. IA 1/20 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition together with proper valuation statement.
7. For steps 03.04.2020.”
6. It is submitted that the land is essentially used for agricultural operations. The building in the land is a farmhouse and the same cannot be treated as a commercial building. In the valuation statement the plaintiff pleaded that the land was cultivated with groundnut, plantain etc., and now-a-days, no cultivation has become possible due to frequent elephant attacks and crop destruction.
7. It is submitted that the purpose for which the land is used is material in determining the court fee. The plaintiff relied on the fair value extract, as per which the value of the land was assessed at Rs.881 per cent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed an application seeking amendments in the plaint, which was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh amendment application stating fresh valuation based on Ext.P2.
9. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the property is agricultural
