The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Sec. 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, and its application to appeals arising from suits filed before the amendment, emphasizing the fundamental right to access justice and the need to interpret court fee statutes in a manner that makes access to justice less onerous.

ORDER :

PRAYER: S.A. No. 24518 of 2018 filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2014 passed in O.S. No. 143 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge at Villupuram as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 passed in A.S. No. 16 of 2015 on the file II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Villupuram insofar as rejecting the relief of partition in respect of ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties to the plaint and the decree passed in respect of ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties to the plaint.

1.1 The plaintiff who has successively lost his suit for partition in O.S. No. 143 of 2010 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, and in A.S. 16 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge (FTC), Villupram, has preferred this second appeal. The appeal is yet to be taken on record, and the Registry of this court has raised an objection as to the court fee payable on the appeal. The plaintiff/appellant had paid a fixed court fee of Rs.750/- under Sec. 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, and insists that under Sec. 52 of the Act, he is liable to pay only that which is payable on the suit. The Registry however, contends otherwise.

1.2. On the plaint, court fee of Rs.750/- was paid under Sec. 37(2) of the Act, and the appellant claims that under Sec. 52 of the Act, he is liable to pay only that court fee that was paid on the plaint when the suit was registered. The Registry however, insists him to pay a fixed court fee of Rs.5,000/- as enhanced vide Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act 6 of 2017) (henceforth would be referred to as the Amended Act) which brought about significant amendments to the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The Amended Act came into force on and from 01.03.2017. The Registry’s objection appears to be based on the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sivakami vs. Nallathal, 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 753.

2. The point is whether the court fee payable on any appeal filed after the Amended Act but arising from a suit that was filed before the Amended Act is that which was paid on the suit, or that which is prescribed in the Amended Act. This is governed by Sec. 52 of the Act, and it reads:

“The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject-matter of the appeal.

Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the Court of first instance or by the Court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree.”

3. On the face of Sec. 52, the court fee payable on an appeal is that which is paid on the suit. After all an appeal is a continuation of the suit and this idea easily gets reflected in the said provision. In Sivakami vs. Nallathal, 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 753, when confronted with an identical situation, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that only the enhanced court fee payable as per the Amended Act will apply and in arriving at his conclusion the learned Judge had relied on the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Darsana Bai (Died) and Others vs. C. Saroja and Others, 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 498 : 2014 (1) CTC 673 : 2014 (1) LW 585.

4. The counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the learned Single Judge who decided Sivakami vs. Nallathal did not have the advantage of considering few binding precedents such as that of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garikapati Veeraya vs. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Others, AIR 1957 SC 540, the ratio of a three Judges Bench in State of Bombay vs. M/s Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 980 and a Division Bench of this Court in R.M. Seshadri vs. The Province of Madras, AIR 1954 Madras 543 which have