court fee

Upload: hitejo

Post on 12-Feb-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    1/10

    THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1768 OF 2011

    DATED AUGUST, 2011

    BETWEEN

    Venpati Sridevi and others.

    Petitioners

    And

    Atla Narsimha Reddy and others.

    Respondents

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    2/10

    THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1768 OF 2011

    ORDER:

    The short question that falls for consideration in this Civil

    Revision Petition is whether the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel,

    has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, O.S.No.56 of 2010.

    By order and decree 23.03.2011, the learned Junior Civil Judge,

    Gajwel, held that he did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said

    suit as its valuation was in excess of Rs.1 lakh and directed the returnof the plaint. In appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2011, the learned VI

    Additional District Judge at Siddipet reversed this order and held that

    the suit had been properly valued at less than Rs.1 lakh and that the

    same was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil

    Judge, Gajwel. The appellate Court directed the Court below to

    receive the plaint in O.S.No.56 of 2010 and proceed with the trial in

    accordance with law. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition by defendants

    6 to 8 and 14.

    The suit, O.S.No.56 of 2010, was filed for partition of the plaint A

    and B schedule lands; for recovery of possession in so far as the plaint

    B schedule land is concerned; for an injunction in respect of the plaint

    A schedule land; for a declaration in respect of the cancellation of the

    Form 13(B) certificate dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Mandal

    Revenue Officer, Doultabad, under the provisions of the Andhra

    Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for

    brevity, the Act of 1971) and for costs.

    Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 in the suit raised an objection as to the

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    3/10

    jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, to entertain the

    suit. By docket order dated 26.10.2010, the learned Junior Civil Judge,

    Gajwel, considering the objection as one raised on the ground of

    territorial jurisdiction, held that he had the requisite jurisdiction to try

    the suit and repelled the objection. Thereupon, defendants 6 to 8 and

    14 filed I.A.No.653 of 2010 seeking review of the docket order dated

    26.10.2010 on the ground that they had raised an objection not on

    territorial jurisdiction but as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to

    entertain the suit. Accepting their plea, the trial Court by its order dated

    22.03.2011 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the

    valuation of the suit exceeded Rs.1 lakh.

    Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2011

    before the learned VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet. By order

    and decree dated 07.04.2011, the appellate Court held that the

    plaintiffs had rightly valued the suit and that the suit valuation was not

    in excess of Rs.1 lakh as found by the trial Court and accordingly

    reversed the order passed in I.A.No.653 of 2010 in O.S.No.56 of 2010.

    Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 are in revision before this Court

    aggrieved by the said order and decree.

    Heard Sri G.V.S.Ramaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the

    petitioners/defendants 6 to 8 and 14, and Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy,

    learned counsel on caveat for the respondents/plaintiffs.

    The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

    The prayer in the suit reflects that O.S.No.56 of 2010 was a

    multifarious suit as defined under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh

    Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for brevity, the Act of 1956).

    As per Section 6(1) of the Act of 1956, the plaint in such a case is

    chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of all the reliefs claimed.

    However, the proviso thereto clarifies that if a relief sought is only

    ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the

    value of the main relief. It would be apposite at this stage to detail the

    reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. According to them, the plaint

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    4/10

    A schedule land being an extent of Ac.2.36 guntas in Survey No.391 of

    Begumpet Village of Medak District was in their joint possession along

    with defendants 1 to 5. However, the plaint B schedule land, being an

    extent of Ac.2.07 guntas in Survey No.425, Ac.1.04 guntas in Survey

    No.444 and Ac.1.03 guntas in Survey No.402 of Begumpet Village of

    Medak District, was stated to be in the exclusive permissive

    possession of defendants 9 to 14. The plaintiffs claimed partition and

    separate possession of both plaint A and B schedule lands. However,

    as they were not in joint possession of the plaint B schedule land, they

    separately sought recovery of possession in so far as this land was

    concerned. The other prayers in the suit are for an injunction

    restraining defendants 6 to 8 from interfering with the possession and

    enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint A schedule land; for

    cancellation of the Form 13(B) certificate dated 16.11.2009 issued by

    the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doultabad, under the provisions of the

    Act of 1971 and for a declaration that the same was null and void; and

    for costs.

    It is the case of defendants 6 to 8 and 14 that the plaintiffs would

    have to value the suit for partition of the plaint A and B schedule lands

    and as a distinct and independent relief was sought with regard to

    delivery of the plaint B schedule land, it has to be separately included

    in such valuation, which would then be in excess of Rs.1 lakh and take

    the suit out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil

    Judge, Gajwel. The extract of their objections in this regard as

    reflected in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is as under:

    i) The Schedule A property is valued at Rs.62,250/-;

    ii) The Schedule B property is valued at Rs.97,876/-;

    iii) The value of A & B schedule properties at Rs.1,63,162/-;

    iv) Plaintiffs 3/4thshare in schedule A & B properties comes to

    Rs.1,22,346/-;

    v) For the purpose of jurisdiction 3/4thshare of plaintiffs share

    comes to Rs.91,758/-;

    vi) For recovery of possession, the suit ifvalued at Rs.51,612/-

    which being 3/4thof plaintiffs share;

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    5/10

    vii) For injunction, the suit is valued at Rs.1,000/-;

    viii) For declaration of 13(B) certificate as null and void, the suit is

    valued at Rs.500/-

    Therefore, in aggregate, the suit isvalued at Rs.1,53,870/-.

    Per contra,it is the case of the plaintiffs that they sought partition

    of the plaint A and B schedule lands out of which plaint A schedule

    land was in their joint possession along with defendants 1 to 5 but

    plaint B schedule land was not in their possession and therefore, they

    separately sought recovery of possession in respect thereof. These

    reliefs were accordingly valued under Sections 34 of the Act of 1956

    which put the valuation of the suit at less than Rs.1 lakh. They

    contended that the recovery of possession prayed for by them was

    incidental to the relief of partition and therefore, the same could not be

    treated as an independent and distinct relief to be valued separately.

    The issue therefore turns upon whether the relief sought by the

    plaintiffs with regard to recovery of plaint B schedule land is an

    independent one which would require to be separately valued as per

    Section 6(1) of the Act of 1956.

    Section 34 of the Act of 1956, to the extent relevant for the

    purposes of this case, reads as under:

    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 plaintiffs share.

    (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:

    When the plaint is presented to

    (i) a District Munsif's Court - Rupees fifty.

    (ii) a Subordinate Judge's

    Court or a District Court. - Rupees one hundred if the value

    of plaintiff's share is less

    than Rs.10,000. Rupees

    two hundred if the value

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    6/10

    is not less than

    Rs.10,000.

    (3) "

    A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that where

    partition and separate possession are sought in respect of a property

    which is in joint possession, the Court fee payable as per Section

    34(2) would be either Rs.50/-, Rs.100/- or Rs.200/-. It is only when

    partition and separate possession are sought of a property in which the

    plaintiff has been excluded from possession that the Court fee has to

    be computed at 3/4th of the market value of the immovable property

    included in the plaintiffs share [as per Section 34(1)].

    Section 50(1) of the Act of 1956 provides that if no specific

    provision is made in the Act or any other law regarding the value of

    any suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court,

    value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee

    payable under the Act shall be the same. Thus, generally the value for

    the purposes of Court fee would be the value for determining

    jurisdiction.

    Reference in this regard may be made to the Full Bench

    Judgment of this Court in KALLA YADAGIRI v. KOTHA BAL

    REDDY[1],wherein it was held that what decides the jurisdiction with

    regard to a particular case is the nature of the claim as brought. The

    Full Bench was of the opinion that the proper method was to value the

    Court fee first and take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction, for

    value would control the matter for both purposes. The Full Bench

    observed that it is not the value of the thing affected that settles the

    value of the relief sought, but it is the value of relief sought which

    determines the jurisdiction.

    The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs would therefore be

    determinative of the Courts jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According

    to defendants 6 to 8 and 14, the relief of recovery of possession in so

    far as plaint B schedule land is concerned is a separate relief which

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    7/10

    requires to be valued independently whereas the plaintiffs contend that

    it would be ancil lary to the relief of partition sought by them.The difference in the Court fee payable under Sections 34(1)

    and (2) of the Act of 1956 makes it clear that it is only when separate

    possession is sought on the ground of exclusion from possession

    along with partition that the Court fee would be payable upon 3/4thof

    the market value of the immovable property included in the plaintiffs

    share. In a suit for partition simplicitor with separate possession basing

    on existing joint possession, a paltry Court fee ranging between

    Rs.50/- and Rs.200/- is to be paid under Section 34(2) of the Act of

    1956. Neither Section 21 nor Section 29 of the Act of 1956 would have

    a role to play in such a matter. Section 29 has applicability in cases

    relating to suits for possession of immovable property not otherwise

    provided for in the Act whereas Section 21 deals with suits relating to

    immovable property subject to the other provisions of the Act. Once

    provision is specifically made as to suits for partition along with

    separate possession for the purpose of Court fee under Section 34,

    neither of these provisions would come into operation in such suits.

    In so far as the prayer for partition and separate possession of

    plaint A schedule land is concerned, it would fall under Section 34(2)

    of the Act of 1956 and as a fixed Court fee is prescribed thereunder,

    the valuation of this relief for the purpose of jurisdiction would have to

    be dealt with under Section 50(2) of the Act of 1956, which prescribes

    that if the Court fee payable is at a fixed rate as per the provisions of

    the Act of 1956, the value for the purpose of determining jurisdiction

    would be at 3/4th of the market value of the immovable property.

    Therefore, 3/4th of the market value of the plaint A schedule land

    falling to the plaintiffs share would have to be taken into account for

    valuing this relief for the purpose of jurisdiction. Merely because the

    plaintiffs included a separate prayer for recovery of possession in so

    far as plaint B schedule land is concerned, it does not detract from the

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    8/10

    fact that the said relief was incidental to the partition of the plaint B

    schedule land which had been sought by them. Pertinent to note, the

    plaint B schedule land was in the permissive possession of

    defendants 9 to 14, who were said to be claiming under the other

    defendants and not in their own independent right. Had that been so,

    the consideration would perhaps be otherwise. The main relief of

    partition of plaint B schedule land along with the ancillary relief of its

    separate possession squarely falls within the ambit of Section 34(1) of

    the Act of 1956. This relief had to be valued at 3/4thof the market value

    of the land included in the plaintiffs share. There was no necessity to

    separately value the relief of recovery of possession of this land once

    again for the purpose of Court fee or jurisdiction.

    Thus, the valuation of the plaintiffs suit for the purpose of Court

    fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction would be as under:

    i) Value of plaint A schedule land admeasuring Ac.2.36

    guntas at Rs.22,500/- per acre comes to Rs.65,250/-. Value

    of 3/4thshare of the plaintiffs therein is Rs.48,937.50 ps. 3/4th

    value thereof for the purpose of valuation and Court fee is

    Rs.36,703.12 ps. Fixed Court fee paid thereon under Section

    34(2) of the Act of 1956 is Rs.50/-.

    ii) Value of plaint B schedule land admeasuring Ac.4.14

    guntas at Rs.22,500/- per acre comes to Rs.97,875/-. Value

    of 3/4thshare of the plaintiffs therein is Rs.73,406.25 ps. 3/4th

    value thereof for the purpose of valuation and Court fee is

    Rs.55,054.68 ps. Court fee paid thereon is Rs.2,466/-.

    iii) Value of injunction notionally fixed at Rs.1,000/- under

    Section 26-C of the Act of 1956. Court Fee paid thereon is

    Rs.111/-

    iv) Valuation of declaration in respect of cancellation of Form

    13-B certificate notionally fixed at Rs.500/- under Section 24

    of the Act of 1956. Court fee paid thereon is Rs.56/-.

    In effect, the aggregate valuation of the reliefs for the purpose of

    jurisdiction is Rs.36,703.12 ps. + Rs.55,054.68 ps. + Rs.1,000.00 +

    Rs.500.00, which comes to Rs.93,257.80 ps. The valuation of the suit

    for the purpose of jurisdiction as per Section 50(1) of the Act of 1956 is

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    9/10

    therefore less than Rs.1 lakh and the learned Junior Civil Judge,

    Gajwel, had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. The order

    of the appellate Court holding to this effect therefore does not warrant

    interference by this Court in revision.

    The Civil Revision Petition is without merit and is accordingly

    dismissed. CRPMP No.2528 of 2011 shall stand dismissed in

    consequence. No order as to costs.

    ____________________SANJAY KUMAR, J.

    _______ AUGUST, 2011

    Note: L.R. copy to be marked.

    B/O

    VGSR

    *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

    +CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1768 OF 2011

    % -08-2011

    # Venpati Sridevi and others.

    Petitioners

    Vs.

    $1 Atla Narsimha Reddy and others.

    Respondents

  • 7/23/2019 Court Fee

    10/10

    HEAD NOTE:

    ! Counsel for petitioners : Sri G.V.S.Ramaiah Naidu

    ^ Counsel for respondents : Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy

    ? CASES REFERRED:

    1) 1999 (1) ALT 211 (FB)

    [1] 1999 (1) ALT 211 (FB)