SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Ker) 333

VARGHESE KALLIATH, MANOHARAN
Elizabeth – Appellant
Versus
Francis – Respondent


Judgment :-

Varghese Kalliath, J.

Our learned and noble Brother T.L. Viswanatha Iyer felt some doubt as to the semantics, the drift tenor and impact of S.52 and its provisos of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act). S.52 of the Act provides for payment of court fee for appeals. For easy understanding of the relevancy of the question, we quote S.52 of the Act:

"52. Appeals:- The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject-matter of the appeal.

Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by that Court of the first instance or by the Court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against preliminary decree. Provided further that one third of the fee payable in an appeal shall be paid at the stage of admission of first appeal and second appeal and the balance shall be paid within such period, not later than fifteen days from the date of such admission as may be specified by the court; in case the appeals are admitted. Prov

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top