Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1095 (KER)

Hamaza Haji v. Thykkandiyil Ibrahim

2019-12-20

A.HARIPRASAD, T.V.ANIL KUMAR

body2019
ORDER : A. Hariprasad, J. 1. Legal question that arises in this unnumbered regular first appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay additional court fee at a rate not exceeding 1% of the amount involved in the dispute as provided under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act')? 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by a Subordinate Judge in a suit filed for refund of advance amount paid in connection with an agreement to assign immovable property. The suit was partly decreed by the trial court. Dissatisfied with the quantum of decree amount, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The Registry demanded that the appellant should pay an additional court fee, as required under Section 76 of the Act, to be collected towards the legal benefit fund. On that ground, it refused to number the appeal. 5. For clearly understanding the dispute, we shall extract Section 76 of the Act, "76. Legal Benefit Fund.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force and subject to Section 4A of the Act and sub rule (1) of Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee by notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions to Tribunals, appellate authorities and original suits in Civil Courts other than in Family Court at a rate not exceeding one percent of the amount involved in the dispute and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original suit, original petition, original application, appeal or revision. Explanation.--The term 'amount involved in the dispute' as specified in sub-section (1), where it is capable of valuation, does not include the amount of valuation for the purpose of court fee, in suits for recovery of possession, partition and suits of similar nature and where fixed court fee is specified under this Act. (2) There shall be constituted a Legal Benefit Fund to which shall be credited. (2) There shall be constituted a Legal Benefit Fund to which shall be credited. (i) the proceeds of the additional Court fee levied and collected under sub-section (1); (ii) fifty per cent of the Court-fees levied and collected on mukhtarnama or vakalatnama under Article 16 of Schedule II of this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an amount equal to seventy per cent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected under sub-section (2) shall be set apart every year towards the Fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980 and an amount equal to thirty percent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected shall be set apart towards the fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2003: Provided that the amount so set apart shall be transferred to such funds after retaining an amount equal to ten per cent each from the amount set apart to the Funds specified in sub-section (3) for providing infrastructure to the litigants. (4) The mode and manner in which legal service to the people may be made more efficient and social security measures for legal profession may be provided, shall be as prescribed by rules made by Government." 6. This provision was introduced in the Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (18 of 2016) published in Kerala Gazette Ext. No. 1960 dated 13-11-2016 and it came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2016. In fact, the newly introduced provision has the effect of substituting the then existing provision. Prior to substitution, earlier provision in Section 76 of the Act was to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee, by applications, notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original appeals or revisions to tribunals or appellate authorities, other than Civil and Criminal Courts, at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute in cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original petition, original application, appeal or revision. 7. On a perusal of the existing provision vis-à-vis. 7. On a perusal of the existing provision vis-à-vis. the earlier provision, it will be clear that the legislature thought it fit to collect additional court fee in respect of original suits in Civil Courts, other than in Family Courts, at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute. That appears to be the definite intention for effecting the change. On a careful reading of the existing provision, it can be seen that the legislature never intended to collect additional court fee, payable to the legal benefit fund, when a decree in an original suit is challenged before an appellate court. In other words, we find no reason to infer that additional court fee payable to the legal benefit fund has to be collected at different levels of the same litigation. The indications are very clear that it shall be collected only once, that too at the inception of a suit before a Civil Court. We still find the exclusion of Criminal courts from the purview of collecting additional court fee for the purpose of legal benefit fund maintained. 8. Another relevant aspect is that court fee is collected by the State for services to be rendered by courts and public officers. (See Victoria v. Yesuraj Kumar) 2017 (4) KLT 936 (F.B.). Since an appeal is regarded as continuation of a suit for many purposes, we find no logic in insisting that a litigant should pay additional court fee under Section 76 of the Act in an appeal too. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Felix Varghese v. Jaya Sivaraman 2017 (4) KLT 728 , a Division Bench decision in the context of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The question considered was whether Section 76(1) of the Act applied to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. Division Bench, noticing the presence of Rule 7(4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Rules, 1979, found that the petitioners therein were not liable to pay additional court fee under Section 76(1) of the Act in a Rent Control Proceedings. 10. Another decision brought to our notice is by a learned Single Judge in Thomas K.O. v. Biju and another 2018 KHC 4644. That was a case wherein a suit was laid prior to the date of substitution of Section 76 of the Act. 10. Another decision brought to our notice is by a learned Single Judge in Thomas K.O. v. Biju and another 2018 KHC 4644. That was a case wherein a suit was laid prior to the date of substitution of Section 76 of the Act. When a first appeal was instituted subsequent to the amendment of the Act by incorporating the present Section 76, the appellate court insisted on payment of additional court fee. When considering that question, learned Single Judge held that liability to pay additional court fee shall be reckoned with reference to the date of institution of the suit. In that case, whether additional court is payable or not in an appeal was not considered. After bestowing our anxious consideration, we are of the view that a litigant incurs liability to pay additional court fee prescribed under Section 76 of the Act in a case instituted for the first time before a civil court. His liability is limited to pay such court fee, at the time of institution of the suit. He cannot be asked to pay additional court fee, payable under Section 76 of the Act to the legal benefit fund if a decree is challenged in a first appeal or second appeal. Therefore, the objection raised by the Registry is not sustainable. Hence it is overruled.