Civil Miscellaneous Appeal can be filed against order for redelivery of property.

All these revisions under Art.227 of the Constitution of India are against the order dated 29. 1996, passed by the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Madras, which reads as follows:

"Heard. In view of the decision reported in Biksha Reddy v. Venuna Bai, (1982)2 An.

W.R. 181, only an appeal is maintainable and fixed court-fee has to be paid. But in view of the orders passed by our High Court in C.R.P. No.2999 of 1985 dated 19. 1988 only regular appeal has to be filed as if a decree. Hence regular appeal has to be filed on payment of court-fee. Time 3 weeks."

2. Material facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of these revisions may be stated as follows:

In all the revisions, the revision petitioner is the purchaser in court-auction. For enforcing a mortgage which was executed by one Ekambara Sastri for himself and on behalf of his family, suit was filed by Indian Bank, the mortgagee, as O.S. No.104 of 1972. A preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 20.10.1973 and final decree was also passed on 12. 1974. Since the amount was not paid, the mortgaged properties were brought to sale, and the appellant (revision petitioner) purchased the same in court auction on 30.10.1985, and the sale was also confirmed on 12. 1985. After obtaining sale certificate, the appellant moved for taking delivery of the property as E.A. Nos.128 and 186 of 1986. While the proceedings were pending, it is seen that the first respondent herein moved an application for redelivery of the property. The case put forward by the first respondent was that he is the owner of the property having purchased the same from one Govindasami, who in turn had purchased the same in court-auction in O.S. No.5377 of 1970. The said suit was filed by Mercantile Credit Corporation against Ekambara Sastri for recovery of money. There was also another suit as O.S.No.9300 of 1987, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration and injunction, or in the alternative, to set aside the purchase by the appellant, filed by other persons. The said suit was one for declaration that the court auction sale does not bind the share of everyone of the joint family. The said suit was decreed, and the decision is pending in Appeal as A.S. No.1137 of 1995.

.3. By the impugned order passed in O.S. No.9300 of 1987 which was filed by the plaintiff, court directed that the appellant is liable to re-deliver the property under O.21, Rule 99, C.P.C. It was said that a revision has to be filed. But the office returned the papers on the ground that only an appeal lies. The same was converted into a civil miscellaneous appeal and filed before the lower appellate court. On the C.M. Appeal, at the SR. stage itself, lower court has passed the above order (extracted supra). The lower court was of the view that the impugned order directing re-delivery is a decree for all purposes, ‘and, therefore, a regular appeal has to be filed on payment of ad valorem court-fee. How far the said order is correct, is the matter that requires consideration in these revisions.

4. Court-Fees Act being a fiscal enactment, has to be interpreted strictly. In imposes a burden on the subject and it should be considered in favour of the subject as far as possible. In all fiscal enactments, words are to be construed precisely and in a manner which bears least heavily on the subject. It is also said that it requires an interpretation which neither harms the revenue nor goes out its way to collect court-fees alter the suit has been decided. It is said that court should bear in mind three well-known cannons of interpretation of fiscal statutes namely; (i) such statutes are to be construed strictly, (ii) the subject should not be made liable for payment of enhanced court-fee unless such a step is warranted by the clear provisions of the statute, and (iii) where there is doubt in the matter, an interpretation favourable to the subject should be preferred.

.5. I need take into consideration only