In K.G. Sunil Krishnan v. K.G. Premsankar (2022), the High Court of Kerala clarified the difference in the payment of court fee for a probate petition in Kerala.
The court held that whenever an application for probate or letters of administration is filed, it must be accompanied by a valuation statement of the estate in the form set out in Part I of Schedule III of the of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, with the court fee paid under Article 6 of Schedule I.
The court clarified that under Section 55, every probate/LA application must carry a valuation statement, and the Court must send it to the Collector for an inquiry under Sections 59–60 of the Act.
The Court added that in an uncontested application under Section 56, court fee is paid under Article 6 of Schedule I, while in a contested application it is paid under Article 11(k) of Schedule II — i.e., one-half of the Article 1, Schedule I scale.
In an Uncontested Application
For an application for probate, letters of administration, or a certificate of administration, the court fee is to be computed and paid in accordance with Chapter VI of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.
The application must be accompanied by a valuation statement of the estate in the form set forth in Part I of Schedule III of the Court Fees Act, and the court fee is to be paid under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. This applies to an uncontested application.
That is, in an uncontested application falling under Section 56 of the Court Fees Act, the court fee is to be paid under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Act. From 2025 onwards, for property of value not exceeding ₹10 million, one per cent of the value is payable under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Act.
In a Contested Petition
However, when there is a contest, the court fee is to be paid under Article 11(k) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act (this Article was renumbered as Article 9(l) in 2025).
That is, in a contested application, the court fee is to be paid under Article 11(k) of Schedule II of the Act — i.e., one-half of the scale of fees prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, less the fee already paid at the time of the original application.
Precedents Relied on
The High Court relied on Pappoo v. Kuruvila (1982 KLT 255) and Elsy v. V.K. Raju (2006 (4) KLT 890), in arriving at this decision.
