MOVVA SREEKRISHNAIAH Vs. SURYADEVERA SITHAMSUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was first posted before Punnayya J, for hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal should be heard by a Division Bench because the value of the Appeal is over Rs, 20.000/- Thereupon, the learned Judge seems to have called for the repor t of the office. The office has stated that since the value of the appeal is Rs.16000 it has to be posted before a single judge. Subsequently, the matter has come up before me.

(2.) After hearing the arguments of Sri Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, I am satisfied that the appeal should be heard by a Division Bench. Rule 1 (3) (c) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules provides that every appeal from an original decree when the amount or value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- if the suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted before the 26th January, 1950 and where such a suit was instituted after that date, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- shall be heard by a single Judge.

(3.) The suit was instituted after the 26th January, 1950. Therefore, it is the second limb of the clause that applies. The plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction. He valued the relief at Rs. 32,000/- The court fee is payable on half of the market value i,e., on Rs. 16,000/- under section 24 (b) of the Court Fees Act. He also claimed the alternative relief of damages in a sum of Rs. 32,000/- Since that was the higher of the two reliefs he paid a court fee of Rs. 1,846/- under sec. 20 and Art I schedule I of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. He estimated the value of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 32,000/- The trial Court did not award him the first relief i.e , the relief for declaration and injunction. It only granted him the alternative relief of damages in only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- Therefore, he has preferred this appeal and in this appeal he claims the relief of declaration and the consequential relief of injunction or in the alternative he claims that he should have been awarded damages of Rs. 32,000/- but not Rs.20,000/- only, Consequently he paid the court feeon Rs. 16,000/- being half the market value of the first relief which was valued at Rs. 32.000/-.