A
B
68
LAKSHMI AMMAL
v.
MADHA VAKRISHNAN (K. N.) AND ORS.
August 7, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAP?A REDDY, JJ.]
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, (Central Act) Section 17-D-Read wilh
Civil Procedure Code, (Act V) 1908 Order Vll Rules l(i) and ll(b)-Duty
of the Court regarding the Court fee to be paid.
The appellant paid the correct court fee under Section 37(2) of the Madras
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act ·clearly alleging in para 14 of the plaint
that she is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession
of her half share in the suit properties as heir of deceased Pri.rarnayee. The
preliminary cbjection as to the correct court fee payable raised and taken up
resulted in the final appeal before this Court.
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave, the Court
HELD : (a) Courts should be anxious to grapple with the real
issues
D
and not spend their energies on peripheral ones.
[68H, 69A]
(b) Court fee, if it seriously restricts the right of a :person to seek
his
remedies in Courts of justice should be strictly construed.
Since access to
justice is the basis of the legal system, where there is a doubt, reasonable of
course, the ben!;!fit must. go to hin1 \vho says that the lesser court fee alone
be paid. [69A]
E
In the instant case, the court fee that is payable is under s.37(2) of the
State Act, \\1hich corresponds to Art. 17-D of the Court Fees & Suits Valua-
tion Central Act, which is the predecessor legislation on the subject.
[69C]
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
'F
11-8-1976. of the Madras High Court in CRP. No. 2084/76.
K. S. Ramamurthy, A. T. M. Sampath, S. Gopalakrishnan and
A. N. Ramjani for the Appellant.
K. Jayaram and K. A. Bala Subramaniam and K. Ram Kumar for
the Respondents.
ORDER
Leave granted.
It is unfortunate that long years have been spent by the courts be-
JH
low on a combat between two parties on the question of court fee
leaving the real issues to be fought betweeni them to come up leisurely.
Two things have to be made clear. Courts should be anxious to
'
•
~
.. /
'
I
LAKSHMI v. MADHAVAKRISHNAN
69
grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral
A
ones. Secondly, court fee, if it seriously restricts the rights of a person
to seek his remedies in courts of justice, should be strictly construed.
After all access to justice is the basis of the legal system. In that view,
where there is a doubt, reasonable of cours.e, the benefit must go to
him who says that th(1 lesser court fee alone be paid.
In this particular case there is hardly any difficulty in holding that
the plaintiff in paragraph 14 of the plaint has clearly alleged that she
is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession
of her half share in th~ suit properties as heir of deceased, Paramayee.
Obviously, the court fee that is payable Is as she has claimed, namely
under sec. 37(2) which corresponds to Art. 17(b) of the Central Act,
which is the predecessor legislation on the subject.
We allow the
appeal and send the case back to the trial court and direct that court
' to proceed with the suit expeditiously. w_e make it clear that our deci-
sion on the question of court fee does not have any implications on the
merits including the validity or otherwise of the Will. No costs.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
ll
c
Lex