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