The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of different enactments must be read harmoniously, and the court fee payable on revision petitions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act is governed by Art.11(p) of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act.

1. A question relating to court fee payable on a revision petition filed before the High Court under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") comes up for consideration in these two cases.

2. The skeletal facts necessary for the consideration of the question are: An application under S.80 of the Act for purchase of a kudikidappu was allowed by the Land Tribunal. Respondents before the Land Tribunal took up the matter in appeal. The appeals were also unsuccessful. The revision is directed against the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority.

3. The memorandum of revision petition concluded with the statement:

"Valuation is below Rs. 1000/-. But no court fees is paid in view of S.116 of the Act read with R.127 of the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules".

4. The office of the High Court did not accept the correctness of the above statement of counsel. Attention of counsel was drawn to Art.11(p) of Schedule IT of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Court fee under that provision was directed to be paid. Even thereafter, the revision petitioner's counsel maintained that no court fee was payable. The matter was therefore placed before the court for its decision.

5. Notice was issued to the Advocate General. The matter was elaborately argued thereafter. Smt. Vanaja Madhavan appeared on behalf of the State and supported the stand taken by the High Court Office.

6. It is desirable that the relevant statutory provisions are read before the contentions of counsel on either side are considered. The charging section is S.4 of the Court Fees Act. Thereunder, no document chargeable with fee under that Act can be filed in any court unless the fee indicated has been paid in respect of the case. The computation of fee is provided in Chapter IV of the Act. That section attracts the provisions of Schedules I and II. The schedule that is applicable to a revision petition is Schedule II, Art.11(p) whereof has been already referred to by the Office. It reads: "(p) Revision Petition presented to the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, or under S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 or under the provisions of any other Act, arising out of a suit or proceedings

Table:#1

7. The revision petitions are not those filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. Are they filed "under the provisions of any other Act, arising out of a suitor proceeding!"

8. That the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 1964, would answer the description of 'any other Act' occurring in Art.11(p) does not admit of any doubt. The revision petitions do arise out of proceedings under such an Act. This is clear from the provisions of S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the relevant portion of which reads:

"103. Revision by High Court: (1) Any person aggrieved by

(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal

or;

(ii) any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act or;

(iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act, may within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law."

9. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on R.127 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. Under that rule, the rate of fee is indicated in respect of the documents listed in the appendix. A revision petition is not one of the documents so referred to in that appendix. If therefore the regulation of payment of court fee payable is entirely governed by the provisions of R.127, it would appear that no levy of fee is made on revision petition under S.103 of the Act. Can, in such a situation, the provisions of Art.11(p) be invoked? Counsel for the petitioner so posed the question. Support fo