Dismissed

Salveru padmarao v. Salveru Anjaneyulu

Telangana HC18 Feb 2014CMA/871/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the Apex Court dismissed an appeal against a trial court order returning a partition suit plaint. The Court held that for suits where fixed court fees are paid under Section 34(2), pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by three-fourths of the total market value of the property under Section 50(2) of the Court Fees Act, not by the plaintiff's calculated share valu

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the trial court's order returning the plaint was upheld.

Salveru padmarao Vs Salveru Anjaneyulu — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶4

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.871 OF 2013

¶5

Date: 18-02-2014

¶6

Between: Salveru Padmarao. - - - Appellant. And Salveru Anjaneyulu and 45 others. - - - Respondents.

¶7

This Court made the following :

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶9

AND

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶11

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.871 OF 2013

¶12

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy)

¶13

This Appeal is preferred against the impugned suo-motu order dated 30.07.2013, passed in Original Suit No.7 of 2012 by the IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, whereby the plaint was returned for presentation before the competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶14

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondents herein were the defendants before the trial Court in O.S. No.7 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

¶15

3. The plaintiff filed the Suit for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property claiming 1/15^th share out of 1/5^th share i.e., 1/75^th share in the plaint schedule property. The total market value of the suit schedule property is Rs.8,10,48,825/-, as such 1/75^th value of the share of the schedule property would be Rs.10,80,651/-. The averments of the plaint disclosed that he is in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and a fixed Court fee of Rs.200/was paid under Section 34(2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (For short, ‘the Court Fees Act’). Since value of the share of the plaintiff is Rs.10,80,651/- and 3/4^th of it is Rs.8,10,488.25 paise, the defendants objected the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, as the 3/4^th of market value of plaintiff’s

¶16

share alone is the value of Suit for purpose of jurisdiction.

¶17

4. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the trial Court concluded that it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and ordered return of plaint for presentation before the competent Court, having pecuniary jurisdiction, concluding that 3/4^th of the market value alone shall be taken as value of the Suit, which comes to Rs.8,10,488.25 paise, which is below the pecuniary limit of the District Court, as per the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972.

¶18

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of return of plaint, the present Appeal is preferred on various grounds mainly contending that the trial Court misinterpreted Section 34(2) of Court Fees Act, relied on the principle laid down by Full Bench decision of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri and others Vs. Kotha Bal Reddy^[1] and committed an error in returning the plaint, for presentation before the competent Court, having pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶19

6. During course of argument, learned counsel for the appellantplaintiff contended that the District Court alone has got jurisdiction since the value of the share of the plaintiff alone be taken for determining the jurisdiction of the Court by placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri (1^st supra) and finally prayed to set-aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶20

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants raised an objection with regard to payment of Court Fees under Section 34(2) of Court Fees Act, while contending that when the property is within the possession of the plaintiff, the Court fees shall be paid on ad-voleram basis under Section 34(1) of Court Fees Act and argued totally in support of the finding recorded by the trial Court in ordering return of the plaint and finally prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

¶21

8. Considering rival contentions, perusing material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is:

¶22

Whether the share value of the plaintiff or 3/4^th market value of the property is the basis for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and whether the order passed by the trial Court be sustained?

¶23

9 POINT: As seen from the allegations made in the plaint, the total market value of the schedule property was Rs.8,10,48,825/-; out of which, the branch of the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5^th share i.e., Rs.1,62,09,765/- and in that 1/5^th share, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/15^th share, which comes to 1/75^th share, thereby the value of share of the plaintiff would be Rs.10,80,651/-. For payment of Court fees, 3/4^th market value is to be taken into consideration. Section 34 of Court Fees Act is the relevant provision, which deals with payment of Court fees in partition suits, which is extracted hereunder, for better appreciation:

¶24

“34. Partition Suits: (1) In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property included in the plaintiff’s share

¶25

(2) In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the following rates:

¶26

When the plaint is presented to –

¶27

(i) a District Munsiff’s Court Rupees fifty (ii) a Subordinate Judge’s Rupees one hundred if the value Court or a District Court of plaintiff’s share is less than Rs.10,000/-. Rupees two hundred if the value is not less than Rs.10,000/-

¶28

(3) Where, in a suit falling under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the plaintiff or the defendant seeks also cancellation of decree or other document of the nature specified in Section 37, separate fee shall be payable on the relief of cancellation in the manner specified in that section.”

¶29

10. Similarly, Section 50 of Court Fees Act deals with valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and it is extracted hereunder for

¶30

better appreciation:

¶31

“50. Suits not otherwise provided for: (1) If no specific provision is made in this Act or any other law regarding the value of any suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.

¶32

(2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value the amount stated in the plaint.”

¶33

11. Thus, the Court fee is paid under Section 34(2) of the Act alleging that the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment along with the other defendants. If the suit is filed before the District Munsiff’s Court, Court fee payable is only Rs.50/- and according to clause (ii), if the value of the Suit is less than Rs.10,000/- the Court fee payable is Rs.100/-, and if it is more than Rs.10,000/- the Court fee payable is Rs.200/-.

¶34

12. In the instant case on hand, the value of the property is exceeding Rs.10,000/-; therefore, the plaintiff paid Court fee claiming that he is in joint possession and enjoyment of the property along with the defendants and paid Court fee under Section 34(2) of Court Fees Act, but the plaint is totally silent with regard to valuation of the Suit. However, filed a memo dated 06.11.2012 calculating the value of the plaintiff’s share at Rs.10,80,651/-, but in the present Appeal the dispute is with regard to value of the Suit.

¶35

13. The Senior Civil Judge is conferred with jurisdiction to try the Suit up to the value of Rs.10,00,000/- and whereas the District Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit more than value of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the District Court is competent to try the Suits valued more than Rs.10,00,000/- only. But, now the question is whether 3/4^th market value of share of the plaintiff or total value of the share of the plaintiff be taken for determining the value of Suit under Section 50 of Court Fees Act. In fact, the trial Court relied on a judgment of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri (1^st supra), wherein this Court held that when once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of Court fee that determines the value of jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot go back and value the Suit to bring the same within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.

¶36

14. According to Section 50(2) of Court Fees Act, if the Court fee payable under the Act is at fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court shall be the market value of the movable property or 3/4^th market value of the immovable property. In the instant case on hand, entire schedule property is only immovable property. Therefore, 3/4^th market value of immovable property alone shall be taken into consideration for determining the value of the Suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Sub-section 1 of Section 50 is a residuary Section and governs all Suits in which the Ad-voleram Court fees is payable. The Full Bench of this Court in Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi and others Vs. Ramakrishna

¶37

Deo and others^[2] held as follows:

¶38

“The value for purposes of jurisdiction in suits falling under Section 47 of the Act is governed by Section 50(2) of the Act, which provides that in a suit where fee is payable under the Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable

¶39

property or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value, the amount stated in the plaint. Section 50(2) lays down the rule to govern cases where a fixed Court-fee is payable in making it very clear that in those cases the value for jurisdiction cannot be equated with the value for the purpose of Court-fee. Section 50(2) cannot be pressed into service for purposes of attracting Section 47 in matters which are incapable of valuation, by holding that the value given for purpose of jurisdiction would be the value of the subjectmatter of dispute for purposes of Court-fee within the meaning of Section 47.”

¶40

15. Section 47 deals with Court fee payable in the Suits not otherwise provided for, but the case on hand is governed by Section 34 of Court Fees Act. In view of the observations made by Full Bench of this Court in Kumarika Subarna Rekha (2^nd supra), 3/4^th of the market value of the property alone shall be taken for determination of the value of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶41

16. There is slight distinction between Section 34(2) and 47 in the fixed rate depending upon the form and value of the subject matter but under Section 34, market value has to be applicable whichever is possible to estimate the value of the property. The Madras High Court and this Court in similar situations in Mahaboo Bivi

¶42

Ammal Vs. A.M.M. Abdul Hameed and others^[3] and Devabhaktuni Venkata Subbamma Vs. Chadalavada Ramaseshamma and others^[4] held as follows:

¶43

“…………………; but where the Court-fee is payable at a fixed rate, the value for jurisdiction has to be at 3/4^th of the market value in cases of immovable property (of course perhaps subject to the provisions of section 27 which provides for the contingency where even market-value could not be fixed).”

¶44

17. In another decision of this Court in Dwarampudi Veeramma

¶45

Vs. Kennala Dharma Reddy^[5] , this Court held if the value of share of the plaintiff in respect of immovable property be taken into

¶46

consideration for payment of fixed Court fees but for the purpose of jurisdiction, it is 3/4^{t h} value of the immovable property under Section 50(2) of the Act alone is to be taken into consideration was the principle and Section 50(1) of the Act is not applicable. Similarly, in another decision of this Court (1988 (1) ALT 649) it was held that the value of the Appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction to be taken, is the entire value and not 3/4^th of the value of the subject-matter as in Section 24 and Section 50(1) of Court Fees Act.

¶47

18. However, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff contended that the total benefit the plaintiff is going to get is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the value of the suit. Therefore, the value of the share of the plaintiff alone be taken for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri and others (1^st supra). In Kalla Yadagiri (1^st supra) the Full Bench of this Court relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettia r^[6] held that the value of the relief sought by the plaintiff determines the jurisdiction of the Court and the proper method is to value the Court fees first and adopt that value for the purpose of jurisdiction.

¶48

19. In the facts of Kalla Yadagiri (1^st supra), the Suit was filed for declaration and for consequential injunction, Court fee was paid under Section 24(b) of Court Fees Act at Rs.68,000/- and half of it was Rs.34,000/-, but the objection was upheld by the trial Court. However, the Full Bench of this Court held that the total value of the relief sought by the plaintiff determines the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts of the above decision are totally different from the facts of the present case for the reason that the suit for declaration is to be valued under Section 50(1) of C.P.C. because the Court fees is payable on ad-voleram basis but the Suit for partition is to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction under Section 50(2) of Court Fees Act. Therefore, the principle laid

¶49

down by Full Bench of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri (1^st supra) is in relation to Section 50(1) of Court Fees Act, hence, the principle laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri (1^st supra) cannot be applied to the present facts of the case. Even ignoring all the decisions cited supra, a co-joint reading of Sections 34 and 50 of Court Fees Act, it is clear that sub-section 2 of Section 50 alone is applicable for the reason that Fixed Court fees is paid under Section 34(2), thereby the 3/4^th of the market value alone shall be taken for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court on strict interpretation of Sub-section 2 of Section 50 of Court Fees Act. Therefore, the trial Court rightly concluded that the value of the suit is only Rs.8,10,488.25 paise, which is below the pecuniary jurisdictional limit of the District Court and as such, the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the Suit.

¶50

20. In view of the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra and on strict interpretation of Sections 34(2) and 50(2) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶51

In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no merits in the Appeal and accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed holding the point in favour of the respondents-defendants and against the appellantplaintiff

¶52

In consequence, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶53

_____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J

¶54

_____________________________

¶55

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶56

Date: 18-02-2014. Dsh

¶57

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA