Vested right of appeal and court-fee liability are fixed by the law in force when the suit is instituted.

A vested right of appeal accrues when the suit is instituted, so an amended court-fee regime cannot retrospectively increase the burden on that pre-existing right. For appeals arising from such suits, the applicable court-fee law is the law in force on the date of institution of the suit, not the later law in force when the appeal is filed. The defendant stands on the same footing as the plaintiff for this purpose. A set-off or counterclaim is treated as a fresh proceeding, however, and court-fee on any appeal arising from it is governed by the law in force when that set-off or counterclaim was filed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended court-fee provisions applied to appeals arising from suits filed before the amendment came into force and could increase the burden on an already vested right of appeal; (ii) whether the position of a defendant, and the cases of set-off and counterclaim, altered the date with reference to which court-fee on appeal had to be determined.

Issue (i): Whether the amended court-fee provisions applied to appeals arising from suits filed before the amendment came into force and could increase the burden on an already vested right of appeal.

Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a vested and substantive right that accrued when the suit was instituted. The amended court-fee regime could not be applied so as to impose a higher burden on the exercise of that pre-existing right. The relevant law for the appeal was therefore the law in force when the suit was filed, not the law in force when the appeal was preferred.

Conclusion: The amended court-fee provisions did not govern these appeals, and the excess court-fees paid were refundable.

Issue (ii): Whether the position of a defendant, and the cases of set-off and counterclaim, altered the date with reference to which court-fee on appeal had to be determined.

Analysis: No distinction was accepted between plaintiff and defendant for this purpose, because the right of appeal in either case vested on institution of the suit. A set-off or counterclaim, however, was treated as a fresh suit, so the court-fee and any appeal arising from it had to be governed by the law in force when that set-off or counterclaim was filed.

Conclusion: The defendant stood on the same footing as the plaintiff for the present appeals, while set-off and counterclaim were exceptions treated as fresh proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded and the applicants were entitled to refund of the excess court-fees paid on the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal is a vested substantive right that accrues on institution of the suit, so a later amendment enhancing court-fee cannot retrospectively burden the exercise of that right; only a fresh proceeding such as a set-off or counterclaim is governed by the fee structure in force when it is filed.

---