Civil Appeal No 1264 of 1978
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 11 8 1976
Of the Madras High Court in CRP
No 208476
K section Ramamurthy A T M Sampath section Gopalakrishna and A N Ramjani for the Appellant
K Jayaram and K A Bala Subramaniam and K Ram Kumar for the Respondents
ORDER Leave granted
It is unfortunate that long years have been spent by the courts below on a combat between two parties on the question of court fee leaving the real issues to be fought between them to come up leisurely
Two things have to be made clear
Courts should be anxious to 69 grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral A ones
Secondly court fee if it seriously restricts the rights of a person to seek his remedies in courts of justice should be strictly construed
After all access to justice is the basis of the legal system
In that view where there is a doubt reasonable of course the benefit must go to him who says that the lesser court fee alone be paid
In this particular case there is hardly any difficulty in holding that the plaintiff in paragraph 14 of the plaint has clearly alleged that sh is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties as heir of deceased Paramayee
Obviously the court fee that is payable is as she has claimed namely under sec
372 which corresponds to article 17b of the Central Act which is the predecessor legislation on the subject
We allow the appeal and send the case back to the trial court and direct that court to proceed with the suit expeditiously
We make it clear that our decision on the question of court fee does not have any implications on the merits including the validity or otherwise of the Will
No costs


Summary:
The appellant paid the correct court fee under Section 372 of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act clearly alleging in para 14 of the plaint that she is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties as heir of deceased Paramayee
The preliminary objection as to the correct court fee payable raised and taken up resulted in the final appeal before this court
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave the Court  HELD a Courts should be anxious to grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral ones
68H 69A b Court fee if it seriously restricts the right of a person to seek his remedies in Courts of justice should be strictly construed
Since access to justice is the basis of the legal system where there is a doubt reasonable of course the benefit must go to him who says that the lesser court fee alone be paid
69A In the instant case the court fee that is payable is under s372 of the State Act which corresponds to article 17 D of the Court Fees  Suits Valuation Central Act which is the predecessor legislation on the subject