The provisions of fiscal statutes should be liberally construed in favour of the subject and a rigid construction of these Sections should be discouraged.

1. The jurisdiction of the appellate court to consider and decide the sufficiency of the court tee paid in appeal falls for decision in this revision.

The petitioner was the appellant in A. S. No. 23 of 1979 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam That was an appeal against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 390 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, filed by the 3rd respondent, the State Bank of India, Thevara Branch, Ernakulam, as an interpleader suit. The Bank had taken on rent two flats of a building from the father of the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. Since respondents 1 and 2 claimed exclusive right over the properties, the Bank was not in doubt as to the person to whom rent had to be paid or the person to whom it had to surrender the property. Infact the Bank obtained some other building and wanted to surrender the building to the owner. Because of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 the Bank had to file the suit in question The suit was valued for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 6,300/. Fixed court-fee of Rs 100/- was paid under S.50 of the Court Fees Act (for short the Act). The trial court decreed the suit holding that the property in question belonged to defendants 1 and 2. The petitioner, who was the 4th defendant in the suit, filed an appeal paying a court-fee of only Rs.100/-. The appeal was heard on 9-10-1979 and was posted for judgment to 18-10-1979. The learned Judge, who heard the appeal, wanted certain clarifications about the construction of two documents and therefore re-posted the appeal for hearing to 23-10-1979. On that day the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 raised a question of court-fee. The appeal was posted for orders on this question on 31-10-1979. Thereafter, I. A. No 1247 of 1979 was filed by them stating that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The court below after considering the plea raised held that the objection regarding court-fee was well-founded and therefore directed the petitioner to file a valuation statement regarding the subject matter of the suit according to S.48 of the Act. Hence this revision.

2. The provision regarding court-fee in interpleader suits is contained in S.48 of the Act, which reads as follows:

"48. Interpleader suits.- (1) In an interpleader suit, fee shall be payable on the plaint at the rates specified in S.50.

(2) Where issues are framed as between the claimants, fee shall be payable computed on the amount of the debtor the money or the market value of other property, movable or immovable, which forms the subject matter of the suit. In levying such fee, credit shall be given for the fee paid on the plaint; and the balance of the fee shall be paid in equal shares by the claimants who claim the debt or the sum of money or the property adversely to each other.

(3) Value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the amount of the debt, or the sum of money or the market value of other property to which the suit relates."

Court-fee was paid as already indicated under S.50. Since the valuation shown in the plaint was less than Rs.10,000/-, court-fee payable was Rs.100/-. S.46 (2) provides for payment of court-fee on the market value of the property involved in the suit after settling of issues between the claimants. The trial court should have therefore directed payment or court-fee on Rs. 6,300/- in equal shares by the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 This provision escaped the notice of the trial court and a decree was passed without calling upon the parties to pay additional court-fee as provided in S.48 (2) of the Act It was after the appeal was heard in full that the belated application by the respondents 1 and 2 was filed alerting the court of its lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal and about the insufficiency of court-fee. The case of respondents 1 and 2 was that the property was worth more than Rs. 10,000-.

3. The court below relied upon S.12 (4) of the Act and