PISUPATI RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. PISUPATI LAKSHMIDEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proper interpretation of sections 39 (e) and 24 (d) of the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is involved in this revision petition. The two questions that pose themselves before us are (1) whether the suit for specific performance of a family settlement falls within the purview of section 39 (e), and (2) whether the valuation fixed by the plaintiff for the declaratory relief falling under section 24 (d) of the Act is correct The two points arise in the following circumstances. The petitioner laid an action for the specific performance of a family arrangement said to have been arrived at between himself and defendants, by and under which he was to get a 2/5th share of 'A-1' schedule excluding items 1, 2, 3 and 5 to 7 ; 1/5th share in the compensation to be awarded for item 4 of 'A' schedule and item 2 of 'A-1' schedule, in addition to 'B' schedule and 1/5th share of 'C' schedule. In the alternative he prayed for a declaration that he was entitled to 2/5th share in 'A'and 'A-1' schedules and to the entirety of 'B' and 'C' schedules. For purposes of court-fee he valued the relief of specific performance under section 47 of the Act and paid a court-fee of Rs. 200. As regards the declaratory relief, he put a notional value of Rs. 100 and paid an ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 12 thereon. The office took the objection that the relief for specific performance should have been valued under section 39 (e) and that the valuation of the declaratory relief was much below the real value of the properties in dispute.

(2.) The trial Court accepted the objections raised by the Office and directed the petitioner to pay court-fee on the 3/4ths of the market value of the property to which, the plaintiff claimed to be entitled. In regard to the relief of declaration, the petitioner was directed to compute the court-fee on the market value of A, A-1, B and G schedules. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has brought this revision It is urged by Shri Kodandaramaiah in support of this revision that the appropriate section of the Act is section 47 and not section 39 (e) and consequently the court-fee of Rs. 200 paid by him was adequate. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to look at the terms of sections 39 and 47 of the Act. Section 39, omitting the unnecessary portions, reads as follows :

(3.) It is manifest that section 47 would govern only cases to which section 39 (e) is inapplicable. It is convenient at this stage to notice the terms of section 47 :