While setting aside an order of the Munsiff Court, the Kerala High Court has explained 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 under Section 6 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

The Petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Munsiff Court directing the petitioner to amend the valuation portion of the plaint and to remit the requisite court fee.

The Single Bench of Justice P. Krishna Kumar held, “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.”

Advocate K.M.Firoz represented the Petitioner while Advocate Rajeesh K.V. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The suit was instituted for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. Based on the contentions raised in the written statement filed by the defendants/respondents, the petitioner amended the plaint to incorporate a prayer for the declaration that two documents were null and void. At the instance of the respondents, the trial court framed an additional issue regarding the sufficiency of the court fee paid.

On consideration of the issue, the trial court held that the petitioner had undervalued the suit, since the valuation was made on the basis of the consideration shown in the first document alone, while the market value of the disputed property was much higher as reflected in the subsequent document. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the said direction, contending that the valuation of the plaint could not be on the basis of the subsequent document relating to the very same property.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and stated that the court fee is chargeable only on the value of the main relief. Reference was also made to the judgment in State Bank of India v.Niyas (2021), wherein it was held that the true test to distinguish between an ancillary relief and a main relief for the purposes of Section 6 is whether one can be sustained independently of the other.

The Bench noted the specific case of the petitioner that the first Document was a sham transaction, unsupported by consideration, and was executed only to secure the terms of a mediation agreement. As per the Bench, the challenge against the subsequent document was 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. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the true scope of the proviso to Section 6(1), the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay court fee on the valuation shown in the subsequent document”, the Bench explained.

Thus, allowing the original petition and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench directed the Munsiff to dispose of the case at the earliest.

Cause Title: Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:80993)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates K.M.Firoz, S. Kannan, M. Shajna

Respondent: Advocates Rajeesh K.V., L.S.Bhagaval Das

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice P Krishna Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.