The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a fair and reasonable construction of taxing statutes, and the application of the correct court fee provision based on the nature of the proceedings.

1. This matter arises on a reference made by the taxing officer for determination of the proper court-fee payable in the appeal. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, it was felt by the learned judges that the matter in issue deserves to be considered by a Full Bench. The Division Bench felt that in view of the doubt expressed by the Full Bench in Kurien v. Ayyappan (1982 KLT 434 FB.) about the approach and observations in In Re Seethalakshmi & others (1980 KLT 560), the matter merits consideration by a Full Bench. Accordingly, it was heard by this Full Bench.

2. The facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The appellant in the Miscellaneous Appeal was the petitioner in O. P. No. 77 of 1981. It was a petition filed under S.278 of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining letters of administration with the will annexed. The father of the petitioner, Pulikkoottil Chacku executed Ext. Al will dated 15-11-1956. He died on 2-3-1957. The will was registered subsequent to the death of the testator as document No. 12 of 1957. Deceased Chacku left behind him his wife Kunhayi, three sons - the petitioner and two respondents - and a daughter Kunhannam. Kunhayi died on 8-9-1960. Kunhannam died on 16-3-1981. Kunhannam was allotted properties under the will and she sold those properties on 5-6-1978 with the knowledge of the respondents. Under the will the property was allotted to the petitioner with a direction that the petitioner should pay Rs. 500/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1000/-to the 2nd respondent. Thus the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to the estate of deceased Chacku as legatee under the will. He filed an application for granting letters of administration of the property and credits of the deceased with the will annexed. Respondents 1 and 2, petitioner's brothers, filed a counter statement and opposed the petition. It was contended that Chacku had not executed any will on 5-11-1956, that he had no testamentary capacity to execute the same, that he had no power to take an independent decision and that the will is concocted. The genuineness of the will was disputed. It was said that the will was not valid, that Kunhannam did not obtain any right under the will and she had no right to sell the properties. The value of the properties will come to Rs.75,000/-. It was also contended that there are circumstances to show that fraud was practised by the petitioner in bringing about the will. After taking evidence in the matter the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the O. P. The petitioner has filed the Miscellaneous First Appeal from the aforesaid decision in O.P. No.77 of 1981 dated 17th of September, 1982.

3. In the appeal memorandum the petitioner has specified the valuation as follows:

The said article runs as follows:

Provided that if a caveat is entered and the application is registered as a suit, one half the scale of fee prescribed in Art.1 of Schedule.l on the market value of the estate less the fee already paid on the application shall be levied."

The taxing officer took the view that court fee paid on the appeal memorandum is insufficient. The petitioner maintained that the court fee paid under Schedule II Art.11(k)(ii)(2) is proper. At any rate, according to the appellant, the maximum' court fee payable is under Schedule it Art.3(A)(1)(b) i.e. Rs. 10/-. He relied on S.52 of the Court Fees Act also. According to the taxing officer this plea is unsustainable and the relevant provision applicable is, Schedule I Art.4, under which one half of the scale of fee prescribed in Art.1 on the amount or value of the subject matter, is payable. In view of the dispute, the matter was referred to the Bench for consideration.

4. The relevant provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) that were referred during the course of arguments before us are the following:

Memorandum of appeal from an order inclusive of an order determining any question under S.47 or S.144 of