JUDGMENT

ORDER :— Leave granted.

2. 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 grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral ones. Secondly, court-fee, if it seriously restricts the rights of a person to seek him 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.

3. In this particular case there is hardly any difficulty in holding that the plaintiff in para. 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 the suit properties as heir or deceased Paramayee. Obviously, the court-fee that is payable is as she has claimed, namely under S. 37 (2) which corresponds to Art. 17 (B) of the Central Act, which is the predecessor legislation on the subject.