LAWS(APH)-2016-4-38

VEMULA CHINNAMMA @ CHINNAMMAI Vs. BATTULA CHINNA KANNAIAH

Decided On April 22, 2016
Vemula Chinnamma @ Chinnammai Appellant
V/S
Battula Chinna Kannaiah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 29.04.2015 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District passed in I.A.No.33 of 2015 in O.S.No.454 of 2014 filed by the defendants/respondents herein under Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure requesting to decide the pecuniary limits of the suit claim and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit after considering the market value certificates dated 22.09.2014 and 08.12.2014 issued by the Sub -Registrar, Mylavaram in respect of the suit schedule property.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff (for short, the plaintiff) and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants (for short, the defendants). I have perused the material on record.

(3.) The case of the defendants in support of their aforementioned request in the above mentioned interlocutory application, in brief, is this: The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the property admeasuring Ac.0.61 cents viz., Ac.0.12 cents in R.S.No.167/2 and Ac.0.49 cents in R.S.No.170/2 situated at Mylavaram village and mandal of Krishna District, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants had obtained valuation certificates from the Sub -Registrar, Mylavaram. In the said certificates issued by the Sub - Registrar, the value of the property [without any structures] was mentioned as Rs.42,64,900/ -. However, in the suit, the plaintiff had shown the value of the suit schedule property at Rs.5,52,706/ - and that the said valuation includes the values of the structures in the property. Thus, by suppressing the real value of the properties, the plaintiff had played fraud on the Court. In view of the real value of the property as mentioned in the certificates issued by the competent authority, the Court is not having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.