Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, R.S. RAMANATHAN & K. RAVICHANDRA BAABU, JJ.
Darsana Bai (died) & Others
Versus
C. Saroja & Others
C.R.P.(NPD)No. 1974 of 2003, C.M.P. No. 20695 of 2003 & A.S.SR. No. 60263 of 2012
Decided On: 23-01-2014
COURT FEES - SUITS TRANSFERRED FROM HIGH COURT TO CITY CIVIL COURT - COURT FEES PAYABLE IN APPEAL - COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - INTERPRETATION - TAMIL NADU COURT-FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955, SECTIONS 52, 3(IV), 11, 21, 37 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, SECTIONS 21, 37 - HIGH COURT FEES RULES, 1956, RULES 1-A, 1A - SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1887, SECTION 11 - COURT FEES ACT, 1870, SECTION 7(2) - ADDITIONAL COURT FEES - ENHANCEMENT OF PECUNIARY JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF SUITS - COURT FEE PAYABLE IN APPEAL - COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - MEANING - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - DOCTRINE OF PARI MATERIA - APPLICATION - AMENDMENT OF STATUTES - EFFECT ON PENDING PROCEEDINGS - IMPAIRMENT OF RIGHTS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - FISCAL STATUTES - STRICT INTERPRETATION - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO SUBJECT - LIGHTENING BURDEN OF COURT FEES ON LITIGANTS - PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Suits were transferred from the High Court to the City Civil Court by reason of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The plaintiffs were not directed to pay any additional Court fee after the transfer. After the disposal of the suit by passing the decree, the aggrieved party filed the appeal by paying the Court fee that was paid in the High Court where the suit was originally filed. The office raised an objection stating that as per Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, the appellant ought to have paid the Court fee that would be payable in the City Civil Court had the suit been instituted in the City Civil Court. The appellant challenged the objection.
Finding of the Court:
1. There is no need to pay additional Court fees when the suits are transferred from the High Court to City Civil Court consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. Additional Court fee need not be paid only when the suits are transferred from the original side of the High Court due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and when suits are transferred by an order of the High Court to City Civil Court, additional Court fee has to be paid on the subject matter of the suit. 3. Court fees payable under Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is the Court Fees that would have been payable if the suit had been filed in the Court which passed the decree and not the Court fees that was paid at the time of institution of the suit and the phrase "Court of first instance" in Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, means only the Court which passed the decree and not the Court in which the suit was filed.
Issues: 1. Whether additional Court fees need to be paid in respect of suits, which were transferred from High Court to City Civil Court consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, by treating such transferred Court (City Civil Court) as the Court of first instance as held in S.S.Durai Pandian's case, 2012 (5) CTC 610 (DB) : 2012 (4)LW 89 (DB)? 2. Whether such additional Court fees need not be paid in the absence of specific provisions for such collection under the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, as held in S.R.Narayana Ayyar's case, 1958 (1) MLJ 263 (DB)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The phrase "Court of first instance" in Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, means only the Court which passed the decree and not the Court in which the suit was filed. 2. The meaning of the phrase "Court of first instance" in Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, can be found by referring to the meaning given to the same phrase in other statutes, such as Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. 3. The doctrine of pari materia can be applied to interpret the phrase "Court of first instance" in Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, as the said phrase is used in other statutes dealing with the same subject matter. 4. The amendment of a statute during the pendency of a suit does not impair the right of the party to file an appeal by paying the Court fee that was payable at the time of filing the suit, unless the amendment is given retrospective effect.
Final Decision: The Court answered the questions referred to it as follows: 1. There is no need to pay additional Court fees when the suits are transferred from the High Court to City Civil Court consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. Additional Court fee need not be paid only when the suits are transferred from the original side of the High Court due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and when suits are transferred by an order of the High Court to City Civil Court, additional Court fee has to be paid on the subject matter of the suit. 3. Court fees payable under Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is the Court Fees that would have been payable if the suit had been filed in the Court which passed the decree and not the Court fees that was paid at the time of institution of the suit and the phrase "Court of first instance" in Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, means only the Court which passed the decree and not the Court in which the suit was filed.
R.S. Ramanathan, J.
1. In Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1974 of 2003, in the matter of Darsana Bai (died) and others Vs. C.Saroja and others, one of us (K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J) referred the following questions to a Larger Bench, having regard to the conflict of views rendered in the judgmentreported in 2012 (5) CTC 610 (DB) : (DB) in the matter of S.S.Durai Pandian & another v. S.S.Pandian and 1958 (1) MLJ 263 in the matter of S.R.Narayana Ayyar Vs. Mavalathara Veerankutti & others in respect of the Court Fee payable in an Appeal before the High Court when the suit was originally filed before the original side of the High Court and later transferred to a City Civil Court consequent upon enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.
"(i) Whether additional Court fees need to be paid in respect of suits, which were transferred from High Court to City Civil Court consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, by treating such transferred Court (City Civil Court) as the Court of first instance as held in S.S.Durai Pandian's case, 2012 (5) CTC 610 (DB) : 2012 (4)LW 89 (DB)?
(ii) Whether such additional Court fees need not be paid in the absence of specific provisions for such collection under the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, as held in S.R.Narayana Ayyar's case, 1958 (1) MLJ 263 (DB)?"
2. In the earlier judgment reported in 2012 (4) L.W. 89 cited supra, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that under Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Court fee payable in an Appeal shall be the Court fee that would be payable in the Court which passed the Judgment and Decree and interpreted Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, holding that fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance would refer to the Court which passed the Judgment and decree in that suit and not the Court where the suit was originally filed and the Court fee that was paid at the time of filing the suit, cannot be taken into consideration while filing an Appeal, after the suit was transferred from the original side of the High Court to the City Civil Court.
3. A.S. SR.No.60263 of 2012 was filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.11042 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai, and while filing the Appeal, the appellant paid Court fee, which was paid in the suit at the time of filing of the suit in the Original Side of the High Court. An objection was raised by the Office regarding the Court Fees paid in the Memorandum of Appeal on the basis of the Judgment reported in 2012 (4) L.W. 89 cited supra. The learned counsel for the appellant in that Appeal answered the query raised by the Office directing the appellant to pay Court fee that would have been payable in the City Civil Court under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and contended that the phrase, "Court of first instance" referred in Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 means only the Court in which the suit was originally filed and therefore, while filing appeal under Section 52 of the Act, the same Court fee paid before the Original side of the High Court requires to be paid.
4. Therefore, My Lord, the Hon'ble Chief Justice referred the following points to the Full Bench:
"(i) Whether additional Court fees need to be paid in respect of suits, which were transferred from High Court to City Civil Court consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, by treating such transferred Court (City Civil Court) as the Court of first instance as held in S.S.Durai Pandian's case, 2012 (5) CTC 610 (DB) : 2012 (4)LW 89 (DB)?
(ii) Whether such additional Court fees need not be paid in the absence of specific provisions for such collection under the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, as held in S.R.Narayana Ayyar's case, 1958 (1) MLJ 263 (DB)?
O
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
