MAJETI RAVI Vs. MAJETI KAMESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 29-1-1999 made in O.P. No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

(2.) The petitioner/petitioner-plaintiff filed O.P. No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada under Order XXXIII Rule 1 read with Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. claiming the relief of partition of plaint A schedule properties into two equal shares. The Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 had raised a preliminary objection relating to pecuniary jurisdiction to the effect that the value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.6,00,000/- and hence it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and prayed for return of the plaint. The Court below relying upon the judgment reported in G. Venkatarathnam vs. G. Kesava Rao (1988 (1) ALT 649 = 1991 (1) APLJ 485) held that for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, the entire value of the subject matter of the suit has to be taken into consideration and inasmuch as the value of suits in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge is only upto Rs.5,00,000.00 and since the entire value of the subject matter of the suit is Rs.6,00,000.00 the plaint has to be returned. In fact the Court below relying upon the decision stated supra had returned the plaint and aggrieved by the same the present revision is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Kumar, representing Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable inasmuch as the view expressed in the decision stated supra had been overruled by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in K. Yadaiah and others vs. Kotha Bali Reddy. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had brought to my notice the relevant portion of the Full Bench judgment wherein it was held that the valuation of the suit depends upon the value of the subject matter thereof. The Full Bench had observed at Para 8 of the judgment as follows: