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

2019 Supreme(Ker) 1099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A Hariprasad, T V Anil Kumar, JJ.
Hamaza Haji - Appellant
Vs.
Thykkandiyil Ibrahim - Respondent
Unnumbered R.F.A of 2019 (Filing No. 65975/19)
Decided On : 20-12-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G P Shinod, Govind Padmanaabhan, Ajit G Anjarlekar Advs.
For the Respondent: S Vinod Bhat, Anagha Lakshmy Raman, Mini V Menon Advs.

Headnote:

Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 76 – Appeal - Legal Benefit Fund - Appeal is preferred against judgment and decree passed by a Subordinate Judge in a suit filed for refund of advance amount paid in connection with an agreement to assign immovable property. suit was partly decreed by trial court - Dissatisfied with quantum of decree amount, plaintiff has preferred this appeal - Whether appellant is liable to pay additional court fee at a rate not exceeding 1% of amount involved in dispute as provided under Section 76 of Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Held, Court are of view that a litigant incurs liability to pay additional court fee prescribed under Section 76 of Act in a case instituted for first time before a civil court - His liability is limited to pay such court fee, at time of institution of suit. He cannot be asked to pay additional court fee, payable under Section 76 of Act to legal benefit fund if a decree is challenged in a first appeal or second appeal – Ordered accordingly.

ORDER :

A. Hariprasad, J.

1. Legal question that arises in this unnumbered regular first appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay additional court fee at a rate not exceeding 1% of the amount involved in the dispute as provided under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act')?

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by a Subordinate Judge in a suit filed for refund of advance amount paid in connection with an agreement to assign immovable property. The suit was partly decreed by the trial court. Dissatisfied with the quantum of decree amount, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The Registry demanded that the appellant should pay an additional court fee, as required under Section 76 of the Act, to be collected towards the legal benefit fund. On that ground, it refused to number the appeal.

5. For clearly understanding the dispute, we shall extract Section 76 of the Act,

    "76. Legal Benefit Fund.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force and subject to Section 4A of the Act and sub rule (1) of Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee by notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions to Tribunals, appellate authorities and original suits in Civil Courts other than in Family Court at a rate not exceeding one percent of the amount involved in the dispute and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original suit, original petition, original application, appeal or revision.

Explanation.--The term 'amount involved in the dispute' as specified in sub-section (1), where it is capable of valuation, does not include the amount of valuation for the purpose of court fee, in suits for recovery of possession, partition and suits of similar nature and where fixed court fee is specified under this Act.

(2) There shall be constituted a Legal Benefit Fund to which shall be credited.

(i) the proceeds of the additional Court fee levied and collected under sub-section (1);

(ii) fifty per cent of the Court-fees levied and collected on mukhtarnama or vakalatnama under Article 16 of Schedule II of this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an amount equal to seventy per cent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected under sub-section (2) shall be set apart every year towards the Fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980 and an amount equal to thirty percent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected shall be set apart towards the fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2003:

Provided that the amount so set apart shall be transferred to such funds after retaining an amount equal to ten per cent each from the amount set apart to the Funds specified in sub-section (3) for providing infrastructure to the litigants.

(4) The mode and manner in which legal service to the people may be made more efficient and social security measures for legal profession may be provided, shall be as prescribed by rules made by Government."

6. This provision was introduced in the Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (18 of 2016) published in Kerala Gazette Ext. No. 1960 dated 13-11-2016 and it came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2016. In fact, the newly introduced provision has the effect of substituting the then existing provision. Prior to substitution, earlier provision in Section 76 of the Act was to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee, by applications, notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original appeals or revisions to tribunals or appellate authorities, other t

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 Back to top