BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIYAR Vs. KANAKATHIDATHIL MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases have come up before the Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this court (Balakrishna Eradi & Balagangadharan Nair JJ.) wherein the correctness of the decision of a previous Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sabapathy Pillai v. Special Tahsildar ( 1970 KLT 1015 ) was doubted.

(2.) . The appeals have been filed by different claimants against the decision of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry in a batch of connected reference made to that court under S.32 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') concerning apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of certain large extents of land acquired for the purpose of Aralam Seed Farm. At the hearing of the appeals, objection was taken on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General as also by some of the counsel appearing for the party respondents regarding the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeals. According to them, the court fee was insufficient and the appeals are liable to be rejected on the ground of non payment of proper court fee.

(3.) In all these cases, only a court fee of Rs. 10/- had been paid on each Memorandum of Appeal. This was on the basis that the subject matter of the appeals is governed by Art.3(iii)A(1) of Schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'C.F. Act'). This article would apply when the matter is not governed by any of the other specific provisions in the C.F. Act. In the case of Sabapathy Pillai v. Special Tahsildar (1970 KLT 1015) there were observations which lend support to the contention of the appellants.