SYED NAZINNUNNISA Vs. SYED AZMATHULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.(SR) No. 1383 of 2015 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, praying to allow the revision by setting aside the orders dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge in the above said suit and also to direct the trial Court to number the suit.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner before admission and before notice to the respondent and perused the material on record.

(3.) This petition is filed impugning the return of the unnumbered plaint in OS(SR) No. 1388 of 2015 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The suit filed is for the reliefs of declaration of title in relation to BCDG property shown worth of Rs. 3,63,000/ - which is out of total extent for which valuation certificate obtained for Rs. 1,68,43,200/ - comprising of ABCDEFG. So the plaintiff's suit claim is for BCDG property and the value of the same is Rs. 3,63,000/ - arrived as per the valuation certificate obtained for larger extent than to the plaintiffs' suit extent. The Court Fee payable thereon for the relief of declaration of title with consequential relief of possession as per the Sec. 24(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956(for short, 'the Act') is on 3/4th market value of the property. The market value of the property referred supra, on its face is beyond three lakhs as on the date of filing of the suit. The contention is 3/4th market value amount of Rs. 2,72,250/ - of which Court fee payable comes to Rs. 5226/ -. Undisputedly, it is the same 3/4th market value of plaintiff's share to adopt for purpose of Court fee payable and for jurisdiction to determine on pecuniary limitations that what the Full Bench of the A.P. High Court in Kalla Yadagiri v/s. Kotha Bal Reddy : 1994 Law Suit AP 387 stated referring to civil Courts Act Sec. 16 and A.P. Court Fees Act Sec. 50; in answering value for jurisdiction how to take is not the total value or total extent but of share of the plaintiff's claim or relief i.e. the relief plaintiff claims or the benefit the plaintiff derives or the loss the plaintiff averts as the case may be and for that purpose what first determine is the Court fee and then adopt the same for jurisdiction. In Yadagiri(supra) the Full Bench placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v/s. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar : AIR 1958 SC 245 that " - - - -The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and to vice versa". No doubt the Full Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Pamban Kayakkar Valsalan v/s. Pamban Kayakkal Koumudi AIR 1982 -Kerala -304 laid down that even fixed Court Fees paid of Rs. 200/ - paid from plea of joint possession is a suit for partition, the value for purpose of jurisdiction is the market value of the share claimed by the plaintiff/s out of the plaint schedule property. Thus it is neither on entire plaint schedule property value nor even on 3/4th market value of plaintiff's share. Even in Devabhaktuni Venkatasubbamma v/s. Chadalavada Ramasheshamma, 1959(2) An.W.R.238 :, ILR 1959 AP181 -it was held that in a suit for partition not based on joint possession the Court Fees payable is on 3/4th of market value of plaintiffs' share u/sec. 34 of the Act, whereas for purpose of jurisdiction u/sec. 50(2) of the Act, it is based on market value of the plaintiff's share. However, once the Full Bench of this Court answered the issue in Yadagiri(supra) in the year 1999 and same is following by all Courts in the two States, there is nothing to unsettle the same much less to consider any request for reference to Full Bench, though the Kerala High Court Full Bench expression in Pamber (supra) speaks, value for purpose of jurisdiction is total value of plaintiff(s)' property claimed and not 3/4th value of such immovable property, but for to determine separately the value for Court Fees is either fixed or on half or 3/4th value of such property, as the case may be, for one is different to other on Court Fee value and jurisdiction value.