SUNKANI NEELAKANTAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question that arises for decision in the Civil Revision Petition is as to the true interpretation of the scope and effect of section 24 (d) of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1956, hereinafter refeired to as 'the Act'. The suit was instituted by the petitioners herein for a declaration that the Sivaram Mohasa is not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that the provisions of the Madras Rent Reduction Act (XXX of 1947) do not apply. The plaintiffs valued the relief for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100 under section 24 (d) of the Act and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 420. An objection was raised that the relief was not properly valued and the Court held that Court-fee should be paid on Rs. 32,980 (ten times the difference between the rent minus the rent as fixed under the provisions of the Rent Reduction Act). The inamdars have preferred this revision petition challenging the valuation fixed by the Court.

(2.) Section 24 (d) of the Act is in the following terms :-

(3.) Sri M. Krishna Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioners, strenuously contended that unless rules are framed for the guidance of Courts or the plaintiff as to how the relief should be valued, the Courts should adopt the value given bv the plaintiff in his plaint. In support of this contention, he relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Narayangunj Co-operative Society v. Mafizuddin, A.I.R. 1934 Cal. 448 : I.L.R. 61 Cal. 796(F.B.). Construing the provisions of section 7 (iv) of the Ccurt-fees Act and Order 7, rule 11(b), Civil Procedure Code, the Calcutta High Court held that the two enactments should be read together and given effect to when, there is nothing in either enactment expressly indicating any contrary intention. It was further held that unless rules were framed under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act laying down standards for valuing the relief under section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act, it would not be possible for the Court to exercise that power "except in those class of cases falling under the clause in which the valuation made by the plaintiff is illegal, palpably absurd, manifestly illogical or arithmetically wrong." I am not prepared to hold that until rules are framed under section 77 of the Act, it is not open to the Court if value the relief when such power is specifically conferred under clause (d). In this view, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the divergence of authority between the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court and other High Courts. I, however, wish to point out that the State Government should, under section 77 of the Act, make rules as early as possible to carry out the purpose of the Act, i.e., for guiding Courts as to the manner in which the relief should be valued under sections 23 (1)(b), 23 (2) (b), 24 (c) and (d), 26 (b) and (c) and 30 of the Act.