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

2018 Supreme(Ker) 1483

K.HARILAL, ANNIE JOHN
Sulaikha – Appellant
Versus
Raghavan – Respondent


ORDER :

K. HARILAL, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This unnumbered appeal is filed challenging the decree granting a lesser relief, which was prated for in alternative to a greater relief. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since no court-fee was paid for the lesser alternative relief, by virtue of Section 6(3) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant is also not liable to pay the court fee for the appeal challenging the said decree granting lesser alternative relief, in view of Section 52 of the said Act.

3. According to the proviso to Section 6(3) of the Act, where the cause of action in respect of the reliefs claimed alternatively against the same person arises out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be chargeable only with the highest of the fees. So, no court fee was paid for the lesser relief and court fee was paid for the higher relief. Similarly, according to Section 52 of the Act, the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same, as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance is on the subject matter of the appeal.

4. It is true that as per Section 6(3


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