THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU

Civil Revision Petition No.3375 of 2007

24-10-2008

Koganti Sujani

Vissamsetti Sankar Babu & 3 others

Counsel for petitioner: Mr.N.Subba Rao

Counsel for respondents: Mr.T.S.Anand

:ORDER:

This revision petition has been preferred by the fourth defendant in O.S. No.30 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District.

(2) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property, for perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. The suit was numbered by accepting the value of the property and the Court fee was paid. Five years after the filing of the suit, the fourth defendant filed I.A. No.278 of 2007 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to direct the plaintiff to pay deficit Court fee on the ground that the plaintiff has admitted in an application for amendment of the plaint that the property is worth more than one crore rupees. The suit was filed in 2002 and amendment petition was filed in 2006, that is four years after filing the suit mentioning that the property covered by item No.1 fetches more than one crore rupees. Para 8-A was added to the plaint as per amendment order in I.A. No.1009 of 2006 dated 30-10-2006. In that para the relevant portion reads that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is worth more than a crore of rupees, but it is shown that it was sold for a paltry sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. On the basis of this averment, the fourth defendant filed the present application by contending that as the plaintiff stated in para 8.A. of the plaint that the value of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is more than one crore rupees, the plaintiff has to pay Court fee on the said value as per the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, therefore a direction has to be given to the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fee on the value of the property.

(3) The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff adopted the value of the property on the basis of a certificate issued by the Sub Registrar and after verification of the above certificate and the nature of the property, the Court accepted the value and accordingly requisite Court fee was paid and the suit was numbered by the Court. He further contended that the defendant has no business to question the value of the suit property five years after filing of the suit and the value adopted by the plaintiff is correct. He further submitted that the value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit was correctly depicted, but subsequently the prices might have gone up, therefore, the plaintiff mentioned in the amended portion of the plaint that the property would fetch more than one crore rupees. Since there is no other basis to assess the value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, the lower Court accepted the valuation given by the Registrar. (4) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on several judgments rendered by this Court in support of his contention which are as follows:

In NADIKATLA NARAYANA SWAMY AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ANR.1 a learned single Judge of this High Court held that under the provisions of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the Court has got power to collect the deficit Court- fee at any stage of the proceedings, if it is of the opinion that the Court-fee paid is insufficient.

It is unacceptable to contend that when once the suit is registered, the Court has no power to demand deficit Court-fee subsequently. The appellate Court also got jurisdiction to demand payment of deficit fee. In SATYANARAYANA v. OM PRAKASH 2 the Division Bench while considering scope of Section 11(2) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 held that the issue relating to payment of Court fees need not always be tried as preliminary issue. The defendant cannot question the order of trial Court on the ground that the issue was not tried as a preliminary issue or the plaintiff has not paid full Court Fees on plaint. Only in cases where question of payment of Court fee affects the very pecuniary jurisdiction, it is necessary for the Court to investigate and examine and then decide it as a preliminary issue. In such cases only the defendants can contest the matter and move higher Courts in appropriate cases. The question of Court fee payable is generally a matter between plaintiff and State in other cases.

In GUNNA VENKATARATNAM v. GUNNA KESAVA RAO 3 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that Section 17(1) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is a special provision and as such the entire value of the property has to be taken into consideration, but not 3/4 value of the subject matter for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court.

In RAJULAPUDI VENKATRAMAYYA AND ANOTHER v. TATA NARAYANAMMA AND ANOTHER 4 it is held that when the plaintiff undervalued the suit, the defendant though not raised objection regarding the under valuation of the suit in the written statement, he can subsequently raise the objection in an application under Section 11 (2) before the suit has come for trial.

In RAMAIAH v. SREE VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE 5 the learned single Judge of this Court held as follows:

"Upon the language of Sec.24 of the Act as it stands, the Court must be held to have been vested with a discretion either to accept the valuation made by the plaintiff or to fix a valuation of its own. The discretion so vested, of course, must be exercised judicially and in the absence of any guidance afforded by the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the Court would do well in exercising it, take into consideration the previous state of the law applicable to such cases, as also the context in which the clause stands. Under the law as it stood before the Andhra Court Fees Act, 1956, was passed, the Court-fee payable upon the plaint in the present case would have been Rs.100. In a suit where the prayer is not merely for a declaration but also for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, the Court-fee is to be computed under clause (a) of the section on the market value of the property. Where no possession is prayed for but simple declaration, the Court-fee cannot certainly be as much as is payable under that clause. Even under the old law where a declaration as well as possession was sought, ad valorem Court-fee on the value of the property to which the declaration related was payable, while when the prayer was simply for a declaration, a sum of Rs.100 only was chargeable. In the circumstances, the valuation given in the plaint is proper and the Court should accept it as reasonable."

In N.RATNAMMA v. ELIZABETH AND OTHERS 6 a learned single Judge of this Court held that Section 11(I)(a) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act only contemplates that the Market value as given by the plaintiff alone has to be taken into consideration. The Court has no jurisdiction to fix the market value arbitrarily and direct the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court-fee. In M.A. JABBAR v. STATE OF A.P. 7 the learned Single Judge of this Court held that according to Section 24(d) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the plaintiff has to value the relief on the advantage he would gain or the injury or the loss he would avoid.

These judgments were rendered directing that the discretion must be exercised by the Courts judiciously in fixing the value of the property for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction by taking some basis to arrive at the value of the property, but in the case on hand the Court adopted the value furnished by the Registrar of Assurances, therefore these decisions are not helpful to the petitioner in the present case.

(5) The learned counsel for respondents relied on the following judgments in support of his contention:

In N.KURUMURTHY v. M.NARASAIAH 8 a learned single Judge of this Court held that Section 11 (3) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act confer power upon a court of appeal to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower Court on a question of Court-fee either of its own motion or on the application of any party. This provision is intended to negative the right to file a revision. Therefore the revision at the instance of the defendant does not lie.

The above decision indicates that Section 11 (3) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act negatives the right to file a revision at the instance of the defendant.

In BAR COUNCIL OF A.P. v. GOVT. OF A.P. 9 the learned single Judge of this Court held that valuation of the suit on the basis of the value arrived at by the Registration Authority cannot be held to be in excess of or repugnant to the provisions of the Act or offensive to Articles 14 or 21 of Constitution. (6) In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the acceptance of the value furnished by the Registering Authorities and in the light of decisions rendered above, the lower Court was right in accepting the valuation furnished by the Registering Authority as on the date of filing of the suit and it is immaterial whether there is sudden hike in the market value of the land subsequently. The value of the property as on the date of amendment, which is four years after filing of the suit, cannot be taken for the purpose of value of the suit as on the date of filing. Therefore, the lower Court rightly dismissed the application and I do not find any merits in the revision petition.

(7) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Court below.

?1 1998 (3) ALD 403

2 1989 (3) ALT 629 (D.B.)

3 1988(1) ALT 649

4 1973 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter 170

5 1960 Andhra Law Times 991

6 1976 ALT NRC 209

7 1969 APLJ 211

8 1972 (2) APLJ 100

9 1990 (1) APLJ 273