V. RAJARATHINAM Vs. V. SIVASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who has successively lost his suit for partition in O.S.No.143 of 2010 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, and in A.S.16 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge (FTC), Villupram, has preferred this second appeal. The appeal is yet to be taken on record, and the Registry of this court has raised an objection as to the court fee payable on the appeal. The plaintiff/appellant had paid a fixed court fee of Rs.750.00 under Sec.37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, and insists that under Sec.52 of the Act, he is liable to pay only that which is payable on the suit. The Registry however, contends otherwise.

(2.) The point is whether the court fee payable on any appeal filed after the Amended Act but arising from a suit that was filed before the Amended Act is that which was paid on the suit, or that which is prescribed in the Amended Act. This is governed by Sec.52 of the Act, and it reads:

(3.) On the face of Sec.52, the court fee payable on an appeal is that which is paid on the suit. After all an appeal is a continuation of the suit and this idea easily gets reflected in the said provision. In Sivakami Vs Nallathal [2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 753], when confronted with an identical situation, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that only the enhanced court fee payable as per the Amended Act will apply, and in arriving at his conclusion the learned Judge had relied on the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Darsana Bai (died) and others v. C.Saroja and others [2014 (1)MWN (Civil) 498 : 2014 (1) CTC 673 : 2014 (1) LW 585].