Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LAKSHMI AMMAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADHAVAKRISHNAN (K. N.) AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/08/1978
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
DESAI, D.A.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1978 AIR 1607 1979 SCR (1) 68
1978 SCC (4) 15
ACT:
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, (Central Act)
Section 17-D-Read Wit/l Civil Procedure Code, (Act V) 1908
order VII Rules 1 (i) and 11 (b)-Duty of the Court regarding
the Court fee to be paid .
HEADNOTE:
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 Paramayee. The preliminary objection 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 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 benefit must go to him who says that the lesser
court fee alone be paid. [69A]
In the instant case, the court fee that is payable is
under s.37(2) of the State Act, which corresponds to Art.
17-D of the Court Fees & Suits Valuation Central Act, which
is the predecessor legislation on the subject. [69C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1264 of
1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order
dated 11-8-1976. Of the Madras High Court in CRP. No.
2084/76.
K. S. Ramamurthy, A. T. M. Sampath, S. Gopalakrishna
and A. N. Ramjani for the Appellant.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 below on a combat between two parties on the
question of court fee leaving the real issues to be fought
between them to come up leisurely. Two things have to be
made clear. Courts should be anxious to
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 course, the
benefit must go to him who says that the 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 sh., is in joint possession and is
seeking partition and separate possession of her half share
in the 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. We make it clear that
our decision 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
70