NADIKATLA NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 2-8-1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam, in an unnumbered appeal in Gr.No.2198/1996.

(2.) Appellants before the lower appellate Court arc the petitioners herein. They filed O.S.No.384/1987 seeking declaration of their title and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein or their subordinates, men or agents from entering into the plaint schedule site or from in any manner interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit was valued for the purpose of payment of Court-fee at Rs.750.00 and accordingly a Court-fee of Rs.83.50 was paid under Section 24(b) read with Schedule 1 Article 1(b) and (c) of A.P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. Subsequently, the suit was tried and the same was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam. The appellate Court before registration of the appeal, assessed the market value of the suit schedule property at Rs.9,000.00 as on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, directed the appellants-plaintiffs to pay the Court-fee on the re-assessed market value. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have taken judicial notice of the market value that was prevalent as on the date of her passing the order and accordingly assessed the market value of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is against the said order, the present revision is filed.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the Court-fee by reassessing the valuation of the suit property. It is further contended that even presuming for argument sake that it has got jurisdiction to do so, the assessment made by the lower appellate Court is without any basis whatsoever.