Back
Sikkim High Court
RIPUSUDAN DAYAL
Hari Prasad Sapkota - Appellant
Versus
Krishna Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 08/21/1984
COURT FEES - EXEMPTION - SIKKIM COURT FEES (EXEMPTION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1983 - APPLICABILITY - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - ACT EXEMPTS PERSONS WHOSE ANNUAL INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 25,000/- FROM PAYING COURT FEES - ACT CAME INTO FORCE ON 1-5-1983 - PLAINTIFFS FILED SUIT FOR PARTITION IN 1979 - PLAINTIFFS' INCOME WAS LESS THAN RS. 25,000/- PER YEAR - LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY COURT FEES - DEFENDANTS CHALLENGED THE ORDER - HELD, ACT OF 1983 IS A PIECE OF BENEVOLENT LEGISLATION AND MUST BE GIVEN A MEANING WHICH PROMOTES THE BENIGNANT INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN PREFERENCE TO THE ONE WHICH PURPORTS TO STULTIFY IT - ACT IS PROCEDURAL AND HAS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY COURT FEES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in 1979. The defendants objected to the valuation of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs and stated that the court-fee should have been paid according to the value of the properties. The learned District Judge observed that there was nothing on record to show how the plaintiffs had valued the reliefs claimed, and called upon them to show the basis of the valuation made. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made an application stating therein that in the law of the Court-fees as applicable to Sikkim, no basis or standard of valuing the reliefs as claimed in the suit, has been indicated and, therefore, the plaintiffs had the choice of putting their own valuation, and as such the Court-fees paid by them might be accepted as sufficient. The Sikkim Court Fees (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1983) was enacted by the Sikkim Legislature, exempting under S.3 the payment of Court-fees, by those whose annual income from all sources did not exceed Rupees twenty-five thousand. The mother and natural guardian of the minor-plaintiffs filed an affidavit stating therein that the income of the plaintiffs collectively and severally was less than Rs. 25,000/- per year and so they were exempt from paying court-fees, as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The learned District Judge observed that the contents of the affidavit had not been challenged by the defendants and, therefore, it could be taken for granted that the plaintiffs were not required to pay Court-fees, in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and so it was immaterial for all practical purposes as to whether the reliefs claimed in the suit were properly valued. Aggrieved, three of the defendants have come up in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Act of 1983 is a piece of benevolent legislation and must be given a meaning which promotes the benignant intent of the legislature in preference to the one which purports to stultify it. Besides, the restricted interpretation must result in the inevitable consequence that the persons like the plaintiffs would find themselves compelled to withdraw their present suit and bring a fresh action, this course being open to them since for the reliefs of partition etc., which they have claimed, the bar of limitation would not come their way. This would only mean multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary avoidable exercise; and it may safely be assumed that the Legislature could not have intended such a result. Therefore, it must be held that the exemption would apply to every one who might be required to pay court-fees, irrespective of whether the action was brought before or after the commencement of S.3, provided that the income of the person concerned did not exceed Rs. 25,000/- per annum.
Issues: Whether the Sikkim Court Fees (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1983 has retrospective operation and applies to cases which were pending when the Act came into force.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act of 1983 does not take away or impair an existing right nor does it create a new obligation or impose a new liability. It only seeks to amend the law of procedure by providing that no court-fee shall be payable in a given situation. As such, this is procedural. The Act of 1983 is a piece of benevolent legislation and must be given a meaning which promotes the benignant intent of the legislature in preference to the one which purports to stultify it.
Final Decision: Revision dismissed with costs.
ORDER :- This is a revision under S.115 of the Civil P. C. and Art.227 of the Constitution against the order dt. 26-12-83 of the learned District Judge, Sikkim, accepting the valuation of the reliefs, put by the plaintiffs-respondents in a suit brought by them against the petitioners, being defendants 1 to 3, and other defendants in the year 1979, for partition of the properties said to be joint Hindu family properties as detailed in Schedule 'A' to the plaint with a declaration of their right, title and interest therein to the extent of 3/4th share and also for rendition of accounts in respect of the income thereof, as also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring or in any way encumbering any of these properties. The respondents valued the suit for the purpose of partition at Rs. 10,000/- for injunction at Rs. 100/- and for accounting also at Rs. 100/-and paid the court-fee accordingly. Admittedly, the valuation is not based on the value of the properties involved; and the manner how the valuation was done, was not indicated. The defendants filed objections stating that the Court-fee should have been paid according to the value of the properties and the suit was under-valued. Vide order dt. 14th June, 1982, the learned District Judge observed that there was nothing on record to show how the plaintiffs had valued the reliefs claimed, and called upon them to show the basis of the valuation made. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made an application stating therein that in the law of the Court-fees as applicable to Sikkim, no basis or standard of valuing the reliefs as claimed in the suit, has been indicated and, therefore, the plaintiffs had the choice of putting their own valuation, and as such the Court-fees paid by them might be accepted as sufficient. Before any orders could be passed on this application, the Sikkim Court Fees (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1983) was enacted by the Sikkim Legislature, exempting under S.3 the payment of Court-fees, by those whose annual income from all sources did not exceed Rupees
twentyfive thousand. Sub-sec.(3) of S.1 provides : "This Act shall come into force from such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act". In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec.(3) of S.1, the State Government appointed the 1st day of May, 1983 as the date on which the provisions of the Act except S.6 thereof would come into force, vide Notification No. 9/LD/1983/481 dt. 21st April, 1983 published in the Sikkim Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 60 Gangtok, Wednesday, April 27, 1983. Thus S.3 of the aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 1st May, 1983. Thereafter, on 25th August, 1983, the mother and natural guardian of the minor-plaintiffs filed an affidavit stating therein that the income of the plaintiffs collectively and severally was less than Rs. 25,000/- per year and so they were exempt from paying court-fees, as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In his order dt. 26th December, 1983, the learned District Judge observed that the contents of the affidavit had not been challenged by the defendants and, therefore, it could be taken for granted that the plaintiffs were not required to pay Court-fees, in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and so it was immaterial for all practical purposes as to whether the reliefs claimed in the suit were properly valued. It was also observed that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants had not been able to dispute this position. So, the learned District Judge accepted the valuation put by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved, three of the defendants have come up in revision.
2. Shri Niladri Sarkar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the learned trial Court has erred in law in revising or reviewing his own order
AI
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
