##PAGE1##

OP(C).644/2026

2026/KER/53134

CNR : KLHC010159092026

2026:KER:53134

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1948

OP(C) NO. 644 OF 2026

OS NO.10 OF 2021 OF SUB COURT, QUILANDY

PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF

KOLLANTAVIDA RAZAK

AGED 53 YEARS, SON OF KUNHABDULLA,

RESIDING AT ALFATHAF VEEDU, MELADY AMSOM DESOM,

PAYYOLI (PO), KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST,

PIN - 673522

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.P.HASHICK

SHRI.ANAS V.

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT

BASHEER, SON OF MOIDEEN,

AGED 40 YEARS

VANNATHAM VEETIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM DESOM,

PAYYOLI (PO), KOYILANDY TALUK, BY P.A HOLDER

VANNATHAM VEETTIL KABEERA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O

BASHEER, PAYYOLI VILLAGE, MELADY DESOM,

KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN - 673522

BY ADVS.

SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

SHRI.B.KRISHNAN

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

##PAGE2##

OP(C).644/2026

2026/KER/53134

CNR : KLHC010159092026

2026:KER:53134

2

ON 16.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

##PAGE3##

OP(C).644/2026

2026/KER/53134

CNR : KLHC010159092026

2026:KER:53134

3

EASWARAN S., J.

---------------------------

O.P.(C).644 of 2026

-------------------------------

Dated : 16^th July, 2026

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has come up

with the Original Petition aggrieved by the order of the trial court

directing the plaintiff to remit the court fee for a total sum of

Rs.36,50,000/- shown in the agreement of sale. While arriving at

the said finding, the trial court relied upon Section 42 (a) of the

Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

2. Heard Sri.P.P.Hashick, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. O.S.No.10/2021 was instituted for specific

performance over an extent of 12 cents. According to the petitioner

on 1.3.2018, an agreement of sale was entered for 20 cents fixing

the value of Rs.36,50,000/-. There was a part performance of the

contract as evidenced from Ext.P3 sale deed dated 22.10.2019

wherein the defendant had transferred eight cents for a sum of

Rs.10,30,000/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present Suit

##PAGE4##

OP(C).644/2026

2026/KER/53134

CNR : KLHC010159092026

2026:KER:53134

4

claiming performance of the balance extent of 12 cents. In the

valuation portion of the Suit he had divided the value of the

property covered by Ext.P2 agreement of sale into two halves and

had shown the valuation as Rs.17,02,697/-. When the Suit was

listed for payment of balance court fee, the trial court formed an

opinion that by virtue of Section 42(a) of the Kerala Court Fees

and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff must pay the court fee on the

entire sum of Rs.36,50,000/-.

4. Section 42(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits

Valuation Act reads as under :

Suits for specific performance.- In a suit for specific

performance whether with or without possession, fee shall

be payable-

(a) in the case of a contract of sale, computed on the

amount of the consideration.

5. Section 42(a) provides that in case of a contract of sale,

the court fee shall be computed on the amount of the

consideration. No doubt, Ext.P2 agreement of sale evidences a

total consideration of Rs.36,50,000/-. But, in case where a part

performance of a contract is carried out by the parties and that a

##PAGE5##

OP(C).644/2026

2026/KER/53134

CNR : KLHC010159092026

2026:KER:53134

5

Suit is filed for specific performance of the remaining part

required to be performed by the defendant, the insistence of the

trial court that the plaintiff should remit the court fee on the entire

sale consideration, cannot be justified. In such circumstances, the

plaintiff is entitled to scale down the valuation after deducting the

amount which he had already paid and upon a sale deed executed

by the defendant.

6. But in the present case, a perusal of Ext.P1 Suit would

show that the valuation done by the plaintiff is artificial. On what

basis the plaintiff has scaled down the valuation to Rs.17,02,697/-

cannot be comprehended by this Court. Ideally the plaintiff should

have ded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document