Court fees in appeals must comply with the amended provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, applicable to appeals filed after the amendment.

ORDER

The appellants in unnumbered A.S in C.F.No.429 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court (FAC), Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, are the revision petitioners herein.

2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration that the of Sale Deed No.1491 of 2011, dated 25.07.2011, as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering the property. The plaintiffs have further prayed for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant to make necessary entries in the official records relating to the cancellation of the impugned sale deed and also to direct the fourth defendant to make necessary entries by deleting the name of the second defendant in the revenue records and insert the name of the plaintiff. A counter claim was filed by the first defendant seeking declaration that he is having life estate over the counter claim property.

3. The suit was dismissed and the counter claim was allowed. The life interest of the fifth defendant over the counter claim property was declared. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed A.S in C.F.No.429 of 2024 before the learned Principal District Judge (FAC), Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. Under the impugned order, the memorandum of appeal was returned by the learned Principal District Judge on the ground that the plaintiffs/appellants have to pay Court fee as was paid before the trial Court and not as per the amended Act. This order is put to challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The trial Court has relied upon a judgment reported in 2023 -3- LW Page.505, (V.Rajarathinam Vs.V.Sivasubramanian and others), which was delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. As per the said judgment, the amending Act would not apply to an appeal arising out of a suit instituted prior to the coming into force of the amendment and therefore, the Court fee that was paid before the trial Court has to be paid before the first Appellate Court also.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has relied upon another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 753 (Sivakami Vs.Nallathal), wherein it is held that the Court fee payable in an appeal shall be under the new Act and not under the old Act. The learned single Judge has further held that the Court-fee payable in an appeal would be the Court-fee payable in the Court of first instance and it would be based on the date on which the appeal is presented before the Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has also relied upon the Division Bench of this Court in A.S(MD) SR.Nos.11388 and 6854 of 2018 and the said appeal arising out of a partition suit. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.750/- as Court-fee before the trial Court and therefore, the same Court-fee has to be paid by the appellants in the first Appellate Court. When the registry raised an objection to the said contention, the issue was placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench for deciding maintainability. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by their judgment in paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 has held as follows:

“4. Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 contemplates only payment of the same Court fees that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that as the Section 52 of the Act is not amended to clarify this issue, the Court fees payable would be Rs.750/- as that was paid at the time of filing of the suit.

6. We are unable to persuade ourselves to the above submission as Section 52 clearly indicates that the Court fees payable is the same as that “would be payable” in the Court of first instance and “not what is paid”. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the language employed in as it is very clear