Court fee on tribunal appeals depends on the CPC meaning of decree, not mere statutory label or finality.

Under the Court Fees Act, the word "decree" in Schedule II Article 11 was read in its settled procedural sense under section 2(2) CPC, so an appeal to the High Court from a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 was treated as attracting the fixed fee and not ad valorem court fee. The Tribunal was regarded as a special adjudicatory body, and its decision, though called a decree, did not meet the CPC definition. The Supreme Court also noted that the Taxing Judge's statutory finality could not curtail its Article 136 power, so the court-fee issue remained open for review.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 attracted ad valorem court fee under Schedule I Article 1 of the Court Fees Act or only the fixed fee under Schedule II Article 11; (ii) whether the finality attached to the Taxing Judge's order under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act barred examination of the court-fee question by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 attracted ad valorem court fee under Schedule I Article 1 of the Court Fees Act or only the fixed fee under Schedule II Article 11.

Analysis: The expression "decree" in Schedule II Article 11 was held to bear the same meaning as in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 was treated as a special adjudicatory body distinct from a civil court, proceedings before it commenced by application and not by plaint, and the Act itself drew a distinction between a suit and a proceeding. The decision of the Tribunal, though described as a decree, did not satisfy the essential ingredients of a decree under the Code. The Act was also treated as a beneficial statute, and the court applied strict construction of the fiscal law in favour of the litigant.

Conclusion: The appeal to the High Court fell within Schedule II Article 11 of the Court Fees Act and ad valorem court fee was not payable; the court fee already paid was sufficient.

Issue (ii): whether the finality attached to the Taxing Judge's order under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act barred examination of the court-fee question by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory finality of the Taxing Judge's decision could not override the Supreme Court's constitutional power under Article 136. The earlier decision relied on by the respondents was distinguished as not having decided the present point, and therefore did not bar scrutiny of the tax-fee determination in the appeal by special leave.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed and the court-fee question was open to examination by the Supreme Court.

Final Conclusion: The memorandum of appeal was held to be properly stamped with the fee already paid, the contrary view of the Taxing Judge was set aside, and the High Court was directed to hear the appeal on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute uses the term "decree" in a fiscal context without defining it, the term is to be read in its settled procedural sense under the Code of Civil Procedure, and an adjudication by a special Tribunal that does not satisfy that definition does not attract the ad valorem fee applicable to appeals from decrees.

---