K HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question is involved in both these revision petitions. Therefore they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The revision petitions arise out of two suits, O. S. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1964 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. The matter relates to the valuation of the suits. The plaintiffs are the petitioner. They filed the suits against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector Karimnagar and the Tahsildar. Metapalli. The plaintiffs were sureties in excise contracts. When they were being proceeded against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector Karimnagar and the Tahsildar, Metappalli. The plaintiffs were sureties in excise contracts. When they were being proceeded against for the amount due under the contracts the units were filed for a declaration that the contracts in question were void ab initio and in any event illegal and unenforceable and the plaintiffs are not liable to pay any sum whatsoever under the said contracts of under the surety bonds executed by them and much less the amount of Rs. 1,86,534.85 Rs. demanded by the Government and to restrain the Government from demanding and recovering any amount from them in respect of the said contracts. In the written statements filed by the Government it was alleged inter alia that the suits were grossly under valued and on proper grossly under valued not on proper valuation, the court of he Subordinate Judge cannot have any jurisdiction, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Subordinate Judge being up to a limit of Rs. 50,000.00. On this plea taken by the Government an issue was framed in both the suits as issue No.; 9 "Whether the suit has been valued properly." This issue in both the suits was decided by the lower court as a preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the suits valued at Rupees 5,200/- and Rs. 5,500.00 is proper. There after the suits were disposed of on merits and the lower court decreed the preferred appeals to this court in A. S. Nos. 136 and 218 of 1965. Both the appeals were allowed by this court on the ground that some documents were not properly marked and the cases were remitted to the lower court for fresh disposal. It is after the cases were remanded to the lower court. the Governments filed applications in the suits. 1. A. Nos. 106 and 107 of 1970, dated 19-2-1970 to decide issue No. again afresh alleging that the suits ought to have been valued at Rs. 1,86,534.85 ps. in which case the court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suits and they would have to be filed in the District Court, The plaintiffs countered these applications alleging that issue No. 9 with regard to valuation of the suit had already been decided by the court on 3-9-1964 prior to remand and found the valuation fixed by the plaintiffs is correct and the court has jurisdiction to try the suits and that decision became final no revisions having been filed by the Government against that order and the same question cannot be reopened and reagitated once again.

(3.) The lower court following the decision in Jabbar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1969) 1 Andh WR 411, , came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs should have valued the reliefs sought for by them at Rs. 1,86.534.85 Ps., in which case it cannot have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suits and therefore the question involved raises the question of jurisdiction of the court and as held in the decision in Narasimhulu Chetty v. China Ramayya, (AIR 1942 Mad 502) the finding as to the value of the property for purposes of court fee does not preclude the court from afterwards coming to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The lower court also held that the finding given by it with regard to the valuation of the suits prior to remand does not stand as that judgment has been set aside by the High Court in the remand order. The lower court also said that even in the previous order made by that court regarding valuation the matter was not closed by it once for all but kept the question open as it was stated in that order that the court is entitled to revalue and collect the court-fee if it finds it so necessary from evidence. I do not think this question can detain us long. It is not on the ground that on some new material which was not evident then the value of the suits is now sought to be revised.