Court Fee Is Payable Only On Principal Relief U/S 6(1) Kerala Court Fees Act, Not Consequential Reliefs: High Court

Justice P Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment while setting aside the Munsiff Court's direction that the plaintiff must amend the plaint and remit court fee based on the higher consideration reflected in a subsequent document.

The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, later amended to include a prayer for declaration that two sale deeds Document Nos. 805/ 2008 and 1938/ 2010 were null and void. The trial court held that the suit was undervalued since the valuation was based on the first document, which showed the valuation of the property as Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of the market value of the disputed property in a subsequent document which showed Rs6,07,300/-.

The Court examined whether the valuation for court fee should be based on the document forming the primary cause of action or on any subsequent transaction related to it.

The Court referred to Section 6(1), of the Valuation and Court Fee Act, which deals with multifarious suits and observed:

“The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 makes it explicit that where a relief sought is merely ancillary to the main relief, the court fee is chargeable only on the value of the main relief”

It further cited State Bank of India v. Niyas (2021 (2) KLT 172), the Court observed that where the validity of the subsequent transaction depends entirely on the outcome of the challenge to an earlier one, the subsequent relief is merely consequential.

In the present case, the Court found that the later document (No. 1938/2010) was wholly dependent on the earlier document (No. 805/2008). If the first document fell, the second could not survive. Therefore, the challenge to the second was ancillary, not independent.

“It follows that the challenge against the subsequent document is only ancillary or consequential to the challenge against the first one. In that circumstance, the adjudication to be made by the court primarily rests upon the validity of the first document. The fate of the subsequent document entirely depends on the outcome of that determination. Once the earlier document falls, the later one cannot survive.” the Court noted.

The Court thus allowed the original petition, quashing the trial court's order that required revaluation based on the second document.

Case Title: Madathil Pakruti v T P Kunjanandan and Anr

Case No: OP(C) 345/ 2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701

Counsel for Petitioner: K M Firoz, S Kannan, M Shajna