ORDER : K. HARILAL, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This unnumbered appeal is filed challenging the decree granting a lesser relief, which was prated for in alternative to a greater relief. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since no court-fee was paid for the lesser alternative relief, by virtue of Section 6(3) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant is also not liable to pay the court fee for the appeal challenging the said decree granting lesser alternative relief, in view of Section 52 of the said Act. 3. According to the proviso to Section 6(3) of the Act, where the cause of action in respect of the reliefs claimed alternatively against the same person arises out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be chargeable only with the highest of the fees. So, no court fee was paid for the lesser relief and court fee was paid for the higher relief. Similarly, according to Section 52 of the Act, the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same, as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance is on the subject matter of the appeal. 4. It is true that as per Section 6(3) of the Act, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, wherein the return of advance amount is also prayed for alternatively, no court fee was payable for a lesser alternative relief, for the return of advance amount and so the respondent has not paid separate court fee for the said lesser alternative relief; but he had paid the court fee for the highest relief viz. the specific performance of the agreement for sale. Is the appellant/ defendant not liable to pay the court fee for the appeal challenging the decree granting lesser alternative relief? 5. On a close examination of Section 52 of the Act, and more particularly the first explanation to Section 52 of the Act, we find that, where the appeal is against the grant of the relief, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the same, as the fee that "would be payable" on the relief in the court of first instance. It is pertinent to note that the expression used is "would be payable" and not "paid" on the relief. It is pertinent to note that the expression used is "would be payable" and not "paid" on the relief. So, the amount paid as court fee is of no consequence and the amount that "would be payable" is significant as well as relevant. Therefore, it follows that, even if the respondent/plaintiff has not paid the court-fee for the alternative relief, on a combined reading of the proviso to Sections 6(3) and 52 of the Act, the fee that would be payable by the defendant for an appeal, challenging a decree granting a lesser alternative relief shall be the fee payable in the first instance, if that relief alone was prayed for, and not alternatively. It is needless to say, Explanation (3) to Section 52 of the Act, also would come into play and the court-fee is payable accordingly also. 6. The defect noted by the Registry is upheld and the Registry is directed to number the appeal on payment of court-fee, as held above.