The court emphasized the necessity of proper court fee valuation as mandated by state law, impacting the viability of the suit.

Judgment

(Dated: 12^th December, 2025)

This original petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants Nos.7 and 8, for issuing a writ of certiorari, appropriate writ or direction or order for setting aside Ext.P15 order dated 22.3.2025 passed by the Munsiff Court, Aluva, in I.A. No.9 of 2024 in O.S.No.503 of 2023, having rejected the application filed by the petitioners, for rejection of the plaint.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners/ defendants to declare the sale deeds in the name of the defendant (present petitioners) are null and void, and declare the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5^th share in the plaint scheduled property. The petitioners appeared and filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and also filed I.A. No.9 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for rejection of the plaint. The petitioners/defendants have contended that the property belongs to K.T. Baby, who is the brother of the plaintiff. The said property was purchased by K.T. Baby, and the said K.T. Baby constructed the shopping complex and sold one room in the year 1990 to one Parameswaran. Thereafter, he also agreed to sell seven rooms to some other person, and a suit was filed against K.T. Baby for specific performance of the contract. The said suit was decreed in O.S. No. 242 of 1993, and an execution case was filed in E.P. No. 54 of 2004, and the said 7 rooms have been sold by court auction, on 11.01.2011, thereby all the rooms were sold. Thereafter, a delivery has been effected in the name of the legal heirs of the decree holder on 08.08.2019. The entire property has been delivered, and no property stands in the name of K.T. Baby or his son. Subsequent to the sale deed, Petitioners No.1 and 2 jointly purchased 2/3^rd share and 1/3^rd share, respectively, in the year 2019, and effected the mutation in their names, thereby the petitioners became the owners of the property. The respondent No.1 filed the suit for declaration of the sale deeds as null and void, and to declare 1/5^th share of the scheduled property, and there is no existence of the scheduled property. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was required to pay the court fee as per Section 25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act , by considering the market value of the immovable property, and one-half of the market value of the property should be considered for paying the court fee. But the plaintiff valued the property at only ₹1,000 and paid the court fee of ₹80/- as per Section 27 (c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act , which is not correct. For the declaration and cancellation of the sale deed, the respondent/plaintiff is required to pay the court fee as per Section 25 (b) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act , for valuing the property more than ₹ 4 crore. Therefore, the plaint itself is liable to be rejected or ordered to pay the necessary court fee. It is further contended that the 6^th defendant filed a suit on the previous occasion as against the 1^st defendant i.e., against the son of K.T. Baby, in O.S. No.616 of 2013 for declaration and prohibitory injunction. In 2013 itself, the scheduled property described as A, B, C, D, was valued for ₹9,00,000, for declaratory relief, and paid the court fee ₹7,450/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2023 by calculating the market value as ₹1,000/- and paying the court fee ₹80/- as per 27 (c) is not correct. He further contended that one more suit was filed for prohibitory injunction in O.S. No.407