Declaration against binding documents by predecessor values under Section 25(d)(ii); partition requires Section 53(2) valuation per document value, affecting jurisdiction.

J U D G M E N T

This original petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 and P5 orders passed in O.S. No.43 of 2017. The petitioners instituted the suit for declaration that certain documents are not binding upon the plaintiffs and the plaint schedule property and a consequential prayer for partition of item Nos. 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 properties and allotting ¾^th and ¼^th shares in it respectively. The defendants resisted the suit and one among the contentions raised in opposition of the suit was the valuation not being properly done by the plaintiffs.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit was valued in term of Section 25 (d)(ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). The defendants raised a plea that since the documents in question were executed by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, necessarily, without seeking for a relief for setting aside the document and valuing the suit in terms of (a) read with Section 53 (2) of the Act, the plaintiffs cannot sustain the suit. By Ext.P2 order, the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs ought to have computed the fee under (a) read with (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were directed to properly value the suit and amend the plaint accordingly within seven days. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred I.A. No.9 of 2021, seeking for a review of the said order. By Ext.P5 order dated 30.10.2021, the application was dismissed and the earlier order was confirmed. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard, Shri.P.B. Subramanyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.M.R. Mini, the learned counsel appearing for 1, 2, 9 and 10 and Shri. Ajith Viswanathan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8.

4. Sri. Sri.P.B. Subramanyan, the counsel appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision of this Court inThomas v. Antony[ 2001 (3) KLT 233 ] and Usman Kurikkal v. Parappur Achuthan Nair [ 2012 (3) KHC 89 ] contended that since the petitioners have only sought for a declaration that the documents in question will not bind them, the petitioners need to value the property only in terms ofSection 25(d)(ii) of the Act. He further pointed out that the Courts below had misconstrued the scope of the relief sought for in the suit and thus erroneously directed the petitioners to value the suit in terms of (a) read withSection 53(2) of the Act. 5. Per Contra, Smt.M.R. Mini, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 9 and 10 pointed out that the relief for partition sought for in the suit is only a consequential relief, which is depended upon whether the plaintiffs are able to sustain the prayer for declaration that the documents in question are shamed and not binding upon them. The learned counsel for respondents 1, 2, 9 and 10 relied on the decisions of this Court inPrasanna v.Nesamma[ 2025 (5) KLT 875 ], which followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inHussain AhmedChoudhury and Others v. Habibur Rahman (Dead)Through LRs and Others[(2025) SCC OnLine SC 892],wherein it was held that if a suit is filed by a person, who has executed the document, necessarily a relief for cancellation of the said document must be sought for. Since the petitioners are seeking for a declaration that the document executed by their predecessor is not binding, necessarily the right claimed is not an independent right, but one claimed under their predecessor and therefore necessarily without seeking for a prayer for cancellation of the documents, the relief for declaration and also the relief for partition will not sustain. It is further pointed out that the even assuming that the valuation shown in the su