Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
]
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Lakshmi Ammal, Appellant
Versus
K. M. Madhavakrishnan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 1976
Decided on 7-8-1978.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. K. S. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate (M/s. A. T. M. Sampath, S. Gopalkrishnan and P. N. Rajani, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. K. Jayaram, Mr. K. A. Bala Subaramaniam and Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Advocates, for Respondents.
Central Act – Article 17 – Section 37 - Restricts rights of person to seek him remedies in courts of justice - Partition and separate possession of her half-share in suit properties - It is unfortunate that long years have been spent by courts below on combat between two parties on question of court fee leaving 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 real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral ones – Secondly court fee if it seriously restricts rights of person to seek him remedies in courts of justice should be strictly construed - After all access to justice is basis of legal system - In that view where there is doubt reasonable of course benefit must go to him who says that lesser court fee alone be paid – Held, In this particular case there is hardly any difficulty in holding that plaintiff in Para - Plaint has clearly alleged that she is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in suit properties as heir or deceased Parameter - Obviously court fee that is payable is as she has claimed namely which corresponds Central Act which is predecessor legislation on subject – Court allow appeal and send case back to trial Court and direct that court to proceed with suit expeditiously – Court make it clear that our decision on question of court fee does not have any implications on merits including validity or otherwise of Will - No costs - Appeal allowed
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. 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.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1978 SC 1607
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
