Kerala High Court Clarifies Court Fee Valuation in Cases with Ancillary Reliefs

Decision underscores that court fee should be based on main relief value, not higher valuations in subsequent documents.

The Kerala High Court, in a landmark decision dated October 29, 2025, has provided clarity on the determination of court fees in cases involving ancillary reliefs. The judgment, delivered by Justice P. Krishna Kumar in the matter of Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan, addresses the crucial question of whether court fees should be charged based on the valuation of a subsequent document or the main relief sought in a suit.

The petitioner, Madathil Pakruti, challenged an order from the Munsiff Court, Koyilandy, which directed her to amend the valuation of her plaint and remit a higher court fee based on a subsequent document's valuation. This subsequent document, valued at Rs. 6,07,300, was significantly higher than the Rs. 1,50,000 valuation of the first document, which was the basis of the original suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction.

The Kerala High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. This provision explicitly states that when a relief sought is merely ancillary to the main relief, the court fee should be based solely on the value of the main relief.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar highlighted that the validity of the first document, Document No. 805/2008, was central to the case. The subsequent document, Document No. 1938/2010, was dependent on the former and could not stand independently. Thus, the court determined that the petitioner should not be required to pay court fees based on the higher valuation of the subsequent document, as it was only ancillary to the main relief sought.

The judgment further cited the precedent set in State Bank of India v. Niyas, reinforcing the principle that the true test to distinguish between ancillary and main relief is whether one can exist independently of the other.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court quashed the order from the Munsiff Court, directing it to expedite the case's resolution. This decision is expected to have significant implications for how court fees are assessed in similar cases, ensuring that litigants are not unduly burdened by fees based on ancillary documents' valuations.

Bottom Line:

Court Fee - Determination of court fee in cases with ancillary reliefs under Section 6(1) of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Relief sought ancillary to main relief should be charged only on the value of the main relief.

Statutory provision(s): Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 Section 6(1) Proviso

Madathil Pakruti v. T.P.Kunjanandan, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2801201