MADDI BAL REDDY Vs. MERUGU ANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners assail the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.S. No.299 of 2000 as regards the proper Court fee to be paid on the plaint. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who seek to file the suit in O.S. No.299 of 2000 for cancellation of the decree in O.S. No.134 of 1987 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhongir. The earlier suit in O.S. No.134 of 1987 was filed on 28.4.1987 for declaration of title in respect of dry land measuring 30-00 acres. The said suit was decreed on 19.4.1988. Basing upon the knowledge of the decree, the plaintiffs who are not the parties thereto are now impugning the said decree in the present suit. In the process, they valued the suit at the rate at which the property was valued in the former suit. On an objection taken by the defendants about the inadequacy of the valuation in the present suit, the Court below after having heard either side passed the impugned order. The Court below was of the view that the plaintiffs should value the suit as per the market value of the subject matter of the earlier decree.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners seeks to contend that it has not been mentioned in the provision, which is germane for consideration in the context viz., Section 37 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') that the fee should be computed as per the present market value of the property and therefore, the Court below is not correct in having held that the value shall be on the present market value of the property.

(3.) On the other hand it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in T. Tharamma v. T. Ramachandra Reddy and others, AIR 1968 AP 333, that the plaint has to be valued on the market value of the property that formed the subject-matter of the compromise decree, but not on the valuation given by the plaintiff in the suit in which the compromise decree was passed. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners on the other hand seeks to place reliance upon another judgment of this Court in A. V. Reddy v. G. Venkata Narayana, AIR 1975 AP 122, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed shall be deemed to be the value for computation. Having examined both the judgments critically, I see no divergence of opinion inter se between them. Before adverting to the law on this aspect, it is expedient to consider the plain meaning of the section germane in the context for consideration. Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 insofar as is relevant for the present purpose, may be extracted thus: "37. Suits for cancellation of decrees etc :(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be (a) if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed; (b) .................................... (2)................(emphasis is mine) A mere glance at the said provisions shows that the fee shall be computed in a suit filed seeking cancellation of an earlier decree passed by the Court on the value of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be, if whole decree is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed. Here in the instant case, the subject-matter of the suit in O.S. No.134 of 1987 is a landed property measuring 30-00 acres. That suit was filed for declaration of title and that property was valued in accordance with Section 24 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Be that as it may, now the position seems to be obvious that in the present suit the plaintiffs are required to value this suit basing on the value of the subject matter of the earlier suit, which is now sought to be cancelled. In other words, the value of the present suit shall be the value of 30 acres of land, which is the subject mater of the former suit.