The Court Fee payable thereon for the relief of declaration of title with consequential relief of possession as per the Section 24(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956(for short, the Act) is on 3/4th market value of the property. The market value of the property referred supra, on its face is beyond three lakhs as on the date of filing of the suit. The contention is 3/4th market value amount of Rs.2,72,250/- of which Court fee payable comes to Rs.5226/-. Undisputedly, it is the same 3/4th market value of plaintiffs share to adopt for purpose of Court fee payable and for jurisdiction to determine on pecuniary limitations that what the Full Bench of the A.P.High Court in Kalla Yadagiri Vs. Kotha Bal Reddy stated referring to civil Courts Act Section 16 and A.P.Court Fees Act Section 50; in answering value for jurisdiction how to take is not the total value or total extent but of share of the plaintiffs claim or relief i.e. the relief plaintiff claims or the benefit the plaintiff derives or the loss the plaintiff averts as the case may be and for that purpose what first determine is the Court fee and then adopt the same for jurisdiction. In Yadagiri(supra) the Full Bench placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp.Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S.Rm.Ar.Rm.Ramanathan Chettiar that ----The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and to vice versa. No doubt the Full Bench of Honble Kerala High Court in Pamban Kayakkar Valsalan Vs. Pamban Kayakkal Koumudi laid down that even fixed Court Fees paid of Rs.200/- paid from plea of joint possession is a suit for partition, the value for purpose of jurisdiction is the market value of the share claimed by the plaintiff/s out of the plaint schedule property. Thus it is neither on entire plaint schedule property value nor even on 3/4th market value of plaintiffs share. Even in Devabhaktuni Venkatasubbamma Vs. Chadalavada Ramasheshamma -it was held that in a suit for partition not based on joint possession the Court Fees payable is on 3/4th of market value of plaintiffs share u/sec.34 of the Act, whereas for purpose of jurisdiction u/sec.50(2) of the Act, it is based on market value of the plaintiffs share. However, once the Full Bench of this Court answered the issue in Yadagiri(supra) in the year 1999 and same is following by all Courts in the two States, there is nothing to unsettle the same much less to consider any request for reference to Full Bench, though the Kerala High Court Full Bench expression in Pamber(supra) speaks, value for purpose of jurisdiction is total value of plaintiff(s) property claimed and not 3/4th value of such immovable property, but for to determine separately the value for Court Fees is either fixed or on half or 3/4th value of such property, as the case may be, for one is different to other on Court Fee value and jurisdiction value.

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5306 of 2015  

08-12-2015

Syed Nazinnunnisa ...Petitioner/Plaintiff

Syed Azmathullah .Respondent  

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.S.P.Suresh

Counsel for respondent: None

<GIST : ---

>HEAD NOTE: ---

? Cases referred:                                 :

1. 1994 Law Suit AP 387
2.  AIR 1958 SC 245
3.  AIR 1982-Kerala-304
4. 1959(2) An.W.R.238= ILR 1959 AP181  

HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5306 of 2015  

          This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.(SR)
No.1383 of 2015 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet,
praying to allow the revision by setting aside the orders dated 26.10.2015
passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge in the above said suit and also to
direct the trial Court to number the suit.

         2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner before admission and
before notice to the respondent and perused the material on record.

        3. This petition is filed impugning the return of the unnumbered plaint
in OS(SR) No.1388 of 2015 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The
suit filed is for the reliefs of declaration of title in relation to BCDG
property shown worth of Rs.3,63,000/- which is out of total extent for
which valuation certificate obtained for Rs.1,68,43,200/- comprising of
ABCDEFG. So the plaintiffs suit claim is for BCDG property and the value of
the same is Rs.3,63,000/- arrived as per the valuation certificate obtained
for larger extent than to the plaintiffs suit extent. The Court Fee payable
thereon for the relief of declaration of title with consequential relief of
possession as per the Section 24(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and
Suit Valuation Act, 1956(for short, the Act) is on 3/4th market value of the
property. The market value of the property referred supra, on its face is
beyond three lakhs as on the date of filing of the suit. The contention is
3/4th market value amount of Rs.2,72,250/- of which Court fee payable
comes to Rs.5226/-. Undisputedly, it is the same 3/4th market value of
plaintiffs share to adopt for purpose of Court fee payable and for
jurisdiction to determine on pecuniary limitations that what the Full Bench
of the A.P.High Court in Kalla Yadagiri Vs. Kotha Bal Reddy  stated
referring to civil Courts Act Section 16 and A.P.Court Fees Act Section 50; in
answering value for jurisdiction how to take is not the total value or total
extent but of share of the plaintiffs claim or relief i.e. the relief plaintiff
claims or the benefit the plaintiff derives or the loss the plaintiff averts as
the case may be and for that purpose what first determine is the Court fee
and then adopt the same for jurisdiction.  In Yadagiri(supra) the Full Bench
placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in
S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp.Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S.Rm.Ar.Rm.Ramanathan Chettiar    
that ----The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has
valued the relief sought for the purposes of court fees that determines the
value for jurisdiction in the suit and to vice versa.  No doubt the Full
Bench of Honble Kerala High Court in Pamban Kayakkar Valsalan Vs.
Pamban Kayakkal Koumudi  laid down that even fixed Court Fees paid of
Rs.200/- paid from plea of joint possession is a suit for partition, the value
for purpose of jurisdiction is the market value of the share claimed by the
plaintiff/s out of the plaint schedule property. Thus it is neither on entire
plaint schedule property value nor even on 3/4th market value of plaintiffs
share. Even in Devabhaktuni Venkatasubbamma Vs. Chadalavada  
Ramasheshamma  -it was held that in a suit for partition not based on joint
possession the Court Fees payable is on 3/4th of market value of plaintiffs
share u/sec.34 of the Act, whereas for purpose of jurisdiction u/sec.50(2)
of the Act, it is based on market value of the plaintiffs share. However,
once the Full Bench of this Court answered the issue in Yadagiri(supra) in
the year 1999 and same is following by all Courts in the two States, there is
nothing to unsettle the same much less to consider any request for
reference to Full Bench, though the Kerala High Court Full Bench expression
in Pamber(supra) speaks, value for purpose of jurisdiction is total value of
plaintiff(s) property claimed and not 3/4th value of such immovable
property, but for to determine separately the value for Court Fees is either
fixed or on half or 3/4th value of such property, as the case may be, for one
is different to other on Court Fee value and jurisdiction value.
          4. When the law is very clear, the valuation is below 3 lakhs, for
3/4th market value out of Rs.3,63,000/- to be taken for payment of Court
Fee as well as jurisdiction. No doubt other values mentioned also under
Section 26 of the Act.  One is for permanent prohibitory injunction and the
other is for permanent mandatory injunction at Rs.10,000/- each on the
estimation by payment of Court fee of Rs.786/- respectively for each. Then
the total value for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs.2,92,750/-. The Court got
even under Section 26 of the Act, like under Section 24 (c) or (d) of the Act
to ascertain the real value if necessary to enhance if not satisfied with the
value and if found the same as utterly low, even before numbering that is
not the objection before the trial Court. It is only saying how the Court got
jurisdiction. No doubt, Point No.2 four objections raised on 26.10.2015 is
not artistically worded by the concerned Bench clerk by checking nor
corrected by the officer. What it pointed out is as if Court is not having
jurisdiction for payment of Court fees be on 1,68,43,200/- is not correct.
As can be seen from the above, what the idea of the Court in return is for
the value above 3 lakhs, how it got jurisdiction, but for the Senior Civil
Judge before whom the suit is to be filed.  No doubt, there are more than 4
returns and representations by not correctly meeting even in the
representation much less by specifically directed to call at Bench for
hearing to clear the cloud if any.
         5. Having regard to the series of returns that resulted in impugning
the same before this Court, thereby while clearing the same, the plaint is
directed to be numbered if otherwise in order and if the estimated value of
two injunction reliefs at Rs.10,000/- each is just and if not to revise. Even
after revision if the total value does not exceed Rs.3 lakhs, the trial Court
to number the same to decide and it exceeds Rs.3 lakhs to return under
Order VII Rule 10 and 10-A of C.P.C. by fixing a date to present before the
Senior Civil Judges Court.

         6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with no
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
__________________________  
Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,    
Date:08.12.2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515