Supreme Court of India
LAKSHMI AMMAL versus MADHA VAKRISHNAN (K. N.) AND ORS.
- Decided
- 7 August 1978
- Judges listed
- V.R. KRISHNA IYER, D.A. DESAI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1979] 1 S.C.R. 68 · 1978 INSC 124
- Also cited as
- (1978) 4 SCC 15
- AIR 1978 SC 1607
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 68, margin E
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 betweeni them to come up leisurely. Two things have to be made clear. Courts should be anxious to grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral 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 cours.e, the benefit must go to him who says that th(1 lesser court fee alone be paid.
pp. 68–69, margin E
In this particular case there is hardly any difficulty in holding that the plaintiff in paragraph 14 of the plaint has clearly alleged that she is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in th~ suit properties as heir of deceased, Paramayee. Obviously, the court fee that is payable Is as she has claimed, namely under sec. 37(2) which corresponds to Art. 17(b) 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. w_e 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. S.R. Appeal allowed.
p. 69, margin A