Cross-objections attacking a decree must incur ad valorem court fees as per relevant procedural laws, distinguishing them from objections confined to findings.

ORDER :

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

The Registry has raised an objection as to whether the cross-objector in A.S.(MD)No.194 of 2025 can file cross-objection by paying standard court fee of Rs.150/- by nominally valuing the appeal at Rs.5,000/- or whether court fee has to be paid on ad valorem basis.

2.Before answering this legal question, the facts of the case may be summarized. O.S.No.127 of 2015 was filed on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli by one V.A.Seyad Muhammed seeking the relief of specific performance. According to Seyad Muhammed, he had entered into sale agreement with the appellants through their power agent for purchasing the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, Seyad Muhammed passed away. I.A. was filed by Asiya Banu and her children to come on record to prosecute the suit. The IA was allowed. Subsequently, Hameetha Beevi (cross-objector) filed an application to implead herself as one of the defendants. Hameetha Beevi pointed that the marriage between Asiya Banu and Seyad Muhammed was dissolved in the manner known to law and that it was also confirmed by a decree of declaration. She also pointed out that the marriage between herself and Seyad Muhammed was duly registered. Seyad Muhammed was a municipal employee. It is Hameetha Beevi who is receiving the family pension and not Asiya Banu. She categorically asserted that she alone enjoyed the status of wife of Seyad Muhammed since the marriage between Seyad Muhammed and Asiya Banu was dissolved in the manner known to law.

3.The Court below while granting the relief of specific performance vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2023 did not grant any relief to Hameetha Beevi. The denial rested on two grounds: (a) Hameetha Beevi was not a party to the agreement and (b) she did not join herself as a co-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Court below, the defendants have already filed A.S.No.194 of 2025. In the said appeal, Hameetha Beevi filed cross-objection. The Registry raised the issue regarding payment of court fee. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2019) 9 SCC 154 ( P.Surendran Vs. State ) had held that the issue of maintainability has to be decided only by the Court and not by the Registry, we directed the Registry to number the cross-objection and list the same for maintainability. Accordingly, the matter stands posted before us today.

4.The learned counsel for the cross-objector relied on the decision reported in 1995 (98) L.W. 200 ( Madhavan Vs. Muniammal ) in support of his contention that court fee need not be paid on ad valorem basis by the cross-objector. We regret to remind the learned counsel that this decision far from supporting his case is actually against him. That was a case in which the revision petitioners had preferred cross-objection in a regular first appeal. The first appellate Court had directed payment of court fees on the cross-objections. The High Court noted that the revision petitioners had not questioned the trial Court's decree but challenged only an adverse finding and therefore, the question of payment of court fee did not arise. In the case on hand, the cross- objector questions the trial Court's decree since no relief was granted to her. She has not assailed the findings alone. In Madhavan Vs. Muniammal , it was held that a cross-objection in the real sense partakes the character of an appeal for all practical purposes including payment of court fees. The real test is to find out whether the cross-objector attacks the decree or supports the decree. If the cross-objection is in respect of the decree in the sense it attacks t