NAGA LAKSHMAMMA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil Revision petition is directed against an order passed by the lower court, namely the court of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar directing the plaintiff in a pending suit to value the suit at Rs. 27, 444-45Ps, also and to pay additional court-fee on it. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition. The suit is filed against the State of Andhra Pradesh as first defendant and 12 others as defendants 2 to 13.

(2.) The brief facts of the case may be stated thus. The petitioner is the daughter of one late Ramreddy who died on 19-4-1967 leaving behind him four sons, three daughters and heirs of his two elder predeceased sons. He left house and landed properties which were valued in the plaint at Rs. 94, 062-50 ps. The plaintiff claims a 1/9th share in those properties as heir to her father. On 18-12-1968 the Tahsildar of Kollapur taluk, Mahabubnagar district attached certain houses and lands of late Ramreddy to recover Excise arrears of an amount of Rs. 27,444-45 ps. said to be due on a contract taken by Channareddy, the 13th defendant in the suit who is the fourth son of late Ram Reddy. It is pleaded in the plaint to the effect that Channareddy had taken the excise contract on his own and that contract had nothing to do with the other members of the family and therefore the plaintiff's 1/9th share is not liable to be attached and sold to recover the arrears of Rs. 27,444-45 ps., said to be due from Channareddy. The plaintiff valued her l/9th share in the properties of her father at Rs. 10,451-39 ps., being 1/9th of Rs. 94,062-50 ps., which is the value of the entire property left by late Ram Reddy and paid court-fee of Rs. 403-50 on one half of the market value of her share as provided under section 24 (b) of the Andhra Court-fees And Suits Valuation Act. An issue was framed in the suit as issue No. 10 regarding the payment of court-fees 'whether the valuation made by the plaintiff is correct and the court-fee paid is sufficient." It is deciding this issue as a preliminary issue the learned Subordinate Judge passed the order in question.

(3.) It is alleged in the plaint that the properties in question were the absolute properties of Ram Reddy, Even during the life time of Ram Reddy, Channareddy, the 13th defendant became separated while all other members of the family remained joint and undivided. The attachment nude is also illegal, ultra vires, void ab initio and ineffective. The alleged security bond which is said to have been executed by defendant No. 13 is unregistered and unstamped. On that ground also the properties are not liable to be attached and sold. The attachment order and sale proceedings are illegal because of the provisions of the Tenancy laws in force. On account of these allegations, the learned Subordinate Judge said that the suit is not only filed for protecting the share of the plaintiff in the properties in question, but the plaintiff wants to nullify altogether the proceedings taken to recover the excise arrears of Rs, 27,444-45 Ps and therefore besides valuing the suit with regard to her 1/9th share in her father's properties, in addition she should also value the suit with regard to a sum of Rs. 27,444-45 ps. and pay court-fee on it.