SATYANARAYANA Y Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, laid the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from laying any road in the plaint scheduled land. They made a notional value at Rs. 1,000/-, for the relief claimed and a court fee of Rs. 111/- was paid, u/Sec. 26(c) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956,(for short/the Act').For the purpose of jurisdiction the marketvalue of the subject matter was shown as Rs. 75,000/- and therefore the suit came to be filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajam.

(2.) Theinspecting staff of the District Court issued a checkslipstating that the suithaving been valued at Rs. 75,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge's Court commences from Rs. 50,000/-, the court fee should be paid on Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioners filed objections maintaining that the court fee paid bv them was proper as it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, rejected the objections and directed the petitioners to pay the court fee of Rs.75,000/-. Hence the C.R.P.

(3.) It is contended that the suit can be differently valued, one for the purpose of Court Fees and another for the purpose of jurisdiction. The value shown for the purpose of court fees is under the Act, on the value of the relief sought for and the value shown for the purpose of jurisdiction is under the A.F. Civil Courts Act, 1972, on the market value of the subject matter. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay court fees on the value shown for the purpose of jurisdiction, but onlyb on me value shown for the purpose of court fees.