LANKA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. KATRAGADDA MADHUSUDHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.C.L.P.No 311/70 is an application by the un-successful appellant in A. S. No. 394/66 for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India, under Article 133 (1) oi the Constitution The appeal was dismissed by us as incompetent as the appellant was an undischarged insolvent who was not a party to the suit, The suit and the appeal were both valued at Rs. 15,332-25 for purposes of Court Fee and jurisdiction.

(2.) Sri Narasaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the suit and appeal were valued at Rs. 15000/- the suit and appeal involved property well worth over Rs. 20,000/-. He further submitted that since the appeal was rejected by us on the ground that the appellant had no locustandi to maintain the appeal and not on merits, our judgment WaS not one which affirmed the decision of the Court below. According to Sri Chowdary we could not be said to have affirmed the decision of the court below since we did not judicially consider the matters decided by the lower court. As the value of the property involved was over Rs. 20000/- and as our judgment was not one of affirmance he contended that the petitioner was entitled to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as of right. Even if our judgment was to be considered to be a judgment of affirmance be submitted that the proposed appeal involved a substantial question of law. In any case he urged that a question raised was one of importance and the petitioner was entitled to a Certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution

(3.) We do not agree with the submissions of Sri Narasaiah Chowdary. the suit and thea appeal were valued at Rs. 15,332-25, The suit was for recovering possession of plot of land and for damages for breach of contract. The damages were estimated at Rs. 3000/- while the relief of possession was valued under S 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act at three-fourth of the market value of the land. The market value of the land was stated in the plaint to be Rs. 16443/- and under S. 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees Act the relief of possession was valued at Rs 12332-25, Taking the market value as stated in the plaint into account, the value of the subject matter of the dispute could only be said to be Rs. 19443/-. The valuation stated in the plaint was accepted by the defendants in the lower court, there being no issue whether the suit was properly valued. The valuation given in the plaint was also accepted by the present petitioner who valued the appeal in the same manner in which the plaint was valued. Having accepted the valuation given in the plaint and preferred an appeal on that basis it is not open to the petitioner to now urge that the value of the subject matter of the dispute is worth over Rs. 20,000/-. This position is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunju Kesavan v. M. M. Phillip and by a decision of the Andhra pradesh nigh Court in Sriramamurthy v. Suranna(1), There is, however, some difference between those cases and the present case. The petitioner herein obtained possession of the plot of land from the respondent in pursuance of an agreement of sale and raised some constructions on the land estimated variously between Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-. He did this without even paying the amount of consideration due to the plaintiff. Subsequent to the raising of the constructions be became an insolvent and his estate vested in the Official Receiver. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovering possession of the plot of land and for damages. The constructions raised by the petitioner were not the subject matter of the suit. But under Cl. 4 of the decree of the lower court the defendant (Official Receiver), Krishna was given the right to remove the super structures within three months from the date of decree failing which the plaintiff was given the libertv to have the super structures removed at the defendant's cost. Having regard to the direction of the court below it may perhaps be said that the total value of the property directly or indirectly involved exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. We do not want to express any final opinion on that question. We will proceed on the assumption that the value of the property directly or indirectly involved exceeds Rs.20,000/-.