Trial courts must adjudicate proper valuation and allow time for fee remittance rather than dismissing suits prematurely.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction has come up in this appeal aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule

11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff sued the defendant in a declaration of title and injunction by showing the market value of an extent of 1.95 Acres as Rs,10,000/- and paying court fee under Sections 25 (b) and 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 at Rs.220/-. The defendants entered appearance and raised a preliminary issue regarding the valuation of the suit and contended that the valuation is not proper. According to the defendant, the mandatory requirement of Section 10 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1952 (1959), is not complied with. The trial court on 17.3.2022 found that the relief claimed is undervalued but did not proceed to adjudicate the claim; on the contrary, it directed the plaintiff to submit a statement of valuation and posted the case to 22.3.2022. However, no such statement was submitted. Later, finding that the statement of valuation had not been filed by the plaintiff, rejected the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , on 24.3.2022. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.17 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Vatakara. The first appellate court, by judgment and decree dated 16.1.2024, concurred with the findings of the trial court, dismissed the appeal and hence the present appeal.

3. On 16.2.2024, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(i) Whether the Trial Court is justified to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure without complying Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1959?

(ii) Whether the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are sustainable, in view of the decision of this Court in Thomas Kathanar v. Kesavan and Others [1977 KLT 2011]?

4. Heard Sri. R. Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the judgments of the courts below cannot be sustained in view of the decisions of this Court in Thomas Kathanar v. Kesavan and Others [1977 KHC 80] and Ajayakumar and Others v. Jyothi and Others [2022 (5) KHC 62] . According to the learned counsel, even on failure of the plaintiff to submit the valuation statement under Section 10 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 , it was the duty of the trial court to have adjudicated the correct valuation of the suit and required the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee and on failure of the plaintiff to remit the deficit court fee alone, the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule

11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings of the court below and contented that the mandatory requirement of Section 10 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act having not been met, the trial court was justified in rejecting the suit, and that the appellate court also had no other alternative but to confirm the findings of the trial court. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as no substantial questions of law arise in the present case, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and is of the view that the