MAMIDI LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. AKULA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS, DEFENDANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein had originally brought a suit for declaration of his right and possession of the suit schedule lands before the District Munsif, Kovvur, which was registered as O. S. No. 313 of 1955. The question of jurisdiction was raised having regard to the prevailing market-value of the suit lands. The District Munsif ultimately found on the basis of the Commissioner's report that the value of these lands at the time when the suit was brought was Rs. 10,500/-, and on that basis he returned the plaint to be presented before the proper Court. Accordingly, on 19-6-1958, the petitioner herein instituted the suit by presenting the returned plaint before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. By that time, the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 had come into force with effect from 1-5-1956. The question then before the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the old Court Fees Act had applied or the new Act. He came to the conclusion that the new Act has no application and that the old Court-fees Act had applied to the case whereunder, court-fee has to be computed on 15 times the net profits of the lands under Section 7 clause (v) (c) of the old Court-fees Act. Since there was already a report of the Commissioner and further the order of the District Munsif based thereon, was confirmed by the appellate Court, the learned Subordinate Judge having regard to this report of the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the net profits were Rs. 158/- per acre and that 15 times net yield would come to Rs. 2380/- per acre, and he directed payment of Court-fee on that basis.

(2.) If it be held that the case is governed by the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, it admits of little doubt that under Section 24 (a) for purposes of payment of Court-fee the market value of the property has to be computed and Court-fee has to be paid on -ths of such market-value.

(3.) The plaintiff-petitioner has therefore called the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, in question on the ground that the new Court-fees Act, applied to the case having regard to the date of the institution of the suit before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The law is clear that even though the plaint might have been returned to be presented before the proper Court, it is only the date of the presentation of that plaint in the proper Court that would determine the question of Court-fee. In that behalf it would be sufficient if I refer to the decisions in Bimala Prosad v. Lal Moni Devi, A.I.R. 1926 Calcutta 355 and Ram Kishun Rai v. Ashirbad Rai, A.I.R. 1950 Patna 473.