THANKAMMA Vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under S. 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 'C.P.C.', for short, are heard on the issue as to whether the second proviso to S. 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, for short, 'C.F. Act', applies to appeals arising from suits merely for "partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property", for which court fee is leviable in accordance with S. 37(2) of that Act. It was thought appropriate, in the larger public interest, to pointedly hear this issue, having regard to the glaring pendency of fairly old appeals under S. 96 C.P.C., in the defect list on board, on the simple, but luxurious, ground of non-payment of balance court fee; a good lot of them being appeals only of that nature which would fall under S. 52 read with S. 37(2) of the C.F. Act. It needs to be clarified here and now, that we confine ourselves to the type of appeals noted above, to wit, those appeals which would fall squarely under S. 52 read with S. 37(2) of the C.F. Act and not to any appeal which would fall within the gaze of S. 6 of the C.F. Act. The ratio decidendi of this decision will apply only to appeals under sections 96 and 100 of C.P.C., to which S. 52 read with S. 37(2) of the C.F. Act applies and to no other appeals.

(2.) Heard Adv. Sathish Ninan, Adv. Vinod Bhat and the learned Government Pleader, Adv. Noble Mathew.

(3.) It was as per Act 6 of 1991, that certain amendments were made to the C.F. Act with effect from 15.12.1990, extending to the litigants, the benefit of the provisos regarding payment of only 1/10th of the court fee at the institution of suits and only 1/3rd court fee at the stage of institution of appeals.