THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1768 OF 2011

DATED

AUGUST, 2011

BETWEEN
Venpati Sridevi and others.
Petitioners
And
Atla Narsimha Reddy and others.
Respondents

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1768 OF 2011
ORDER:
The short question that falls for consideration in this Civil
Revision Petition is whether the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel,
has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, O.S.No.56 of 2010.
By order and decree 23.03.2011, the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Gajwel, held that he did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said
suit as its valuation was in excess of Rs.1 lakh and directed the return
of the plaint. In appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2011, the learned VI
Additional District Judge at Siddipet reversed this order and held that
the suit had been properly valued at less than Rs.1 lakh and that the
same was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil
Judge, Gajwel. The appellate Court directed the Court below to
receive the plaint in O.S.No.56 of 2010 and proceed with the trial in
accordance with law. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition by defendants
6 to 8 and 14.
The suit, O.S.No.56 of 2010, was filed for partition of the plaint A
and B schedule lands; for recovery of possession in so far as the plaint
B schedule land is concerned; for an injunction in respect of the plaint
A schedule land; for a declaration in respect of the cancellation of the
Form 13(B) certificate dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Doultabad, under the provisions of the Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for
brevity, the Act of 1971) and for costs.
Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 in the suit raised an objection as to the

jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, to entertain the

suit. By docket order dated 26.10.2010, the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Gajwel, considering the objection as one raised on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction, held that he had the requisite jurisdiction to try
the suit and repelled the objection. Thereupon, defendants 6 to 8 and
14 filed I.A.No.653 of 2010 seeking review of the docket order dated
26.10.2010 on the ground that they had raised an objection not on
territorial jurisdiction but as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to
entertain the suit. Accepting their plea, the trial Court by its order dated
22.03.2011 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the
valuation of the suit exceeded Rs.1 lakh.
Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2011
before the learned VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet. By order
and decree dated 07.04.2011, the appellate Court held that the
plaintiffs had rightly valued the suit and that the suit valuation was not
in excess of Rs.1 lakh as found by the trial Court and accordingly
reversed the order passed in I.A.No.653 of 2010 in O.S.No.56 of 2010.
Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 are in revision before this Court
aggrieved by the said order and decree.
Heard Sri G.V.S.Ramaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants 6 to 8 and 14, and Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy,
learned counsel on caveat for the respondents/plaintiffs.
The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
The prayer in the suit reflects that O.S.No.56 of 2010 was a
multifarious suit as defined under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for brevity, the Act of 1956).
As per Section 6(1) of the Act of 1956, the plaint in such a case is
chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of all the reliefs claimed.
However, the proviso thereto clarifies that if a relief sought is only
ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the
value of the main relief. It would be apposite at this stage to detail the
reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. According to them, the plaint

A schedule land being an extent of Ac.2.36 guntas in Survey No.391 of

Begumpet Village of Medak District was in their joint possession along
with defendants 1 to 5. However, the plaint B schedule land, being an
extent of Ac.2.07 guntas in Survey No.425, Ac.1.04 guntas in Survey
No.444 and Ac.1.03 guntas in Survey No.402 of Begumpet Village of
Medak District, was stated to be in the exclusive permissive
possession of defendants 9 to 14. The plaintiffs claimed partition and
separate possession of both plaint A and B schedule lands. However,
as they were not in joint possession of the plaint B schedule land, they
separately sought recovery of possession in so far as this land was
concerned. The other prayers in the suit are for an injunction
restraining defendants 6 to 8 from interfering with the possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint A schedule land; for
cancellation of the Form 13(B) certificate dated 16.11.2009 issued by
the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doultabad, under the provisions of the
Act of 1971 and for a declaration that the same was null and void; and
for costs.
It is the case of defendants 6 to 8 and 14 that the plaintiffs would
have to value the suit for partition of the plaint A and B schedule lands
and as a distinct and independent relief was sought with regard to
delivery of the plaint B schedule land, it has to be separately included
in such valuation, which would then be in excess of Rs.1 lakh and take
the suit out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil
Judge, Gajwel. The extract of their objections in this regard as
reflected in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is as under:
i)

The Schedule A property is valued at Rs.62,250/-;

ii)

The Schedule B property is valued at Rs.97,876/-;

iii)
iv)

The value of A & B schedule properties at Rs.1,63,162/-;

Plaintiffs 3/4th share in schedule A & B properties comes to
Rs.1,22,346/-;

v)

For the purpose of jurisdiction 3/4th share of plaintiffs share

comes to Rs.91,758/-;

vi)

For recovery of possession, the suit if valued at Rs.51,612/which being 3/4th of plaintiffs share;

vii)

For injunction, the suit is valued at Rs.1,000/-;

viii)

For declaration of 13(B) certificate as null and void, the suit is

valued at Rs.500/-

Therefore, in aggregate, the suit is valued at Rs.1,53,870/-.

Per contra, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they sought partition
of the plaint A and B schedule lands out of which plaint A schedule
land was in their joint possession along with defendants 1 to 5 but
plaint B schedule land was not in their possession and therefore, they
separately sought recovery of possession in respect thereof. These
reliefs were accordingly valued under Sections 34 of the Act of 1956
which put the valuation of the suit at less than Rs.1 lakh. They
contended that the recovery of possession prayed for by them was
incidental to the relief of partition and therefore, the same could not be
treated as an independent and distinct relief to be valued separately.
The issue therefore turns upon whether the relief sought by the
plaintiffs with regard to recovery of plaint B schedule land is an
independent one which would require to be separately valued as per
Section 6(1) of the Act of 1956.
Section 34 of the Act of 1956, to the extent relevant for the
purposes of this case, reads as under:
34. Partition Suits: (1) In a suit for partition and separate
possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned,
jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from
possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market
value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of
the immovable property included in the plaintiffs share.
(2) In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint
family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff
who is in joint possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the
following rates:
When the plaint is presented to
(i) a District Munsif's Court Rupees fifty.
(ii) a Subordinate Judge's
Court or a District Court. - Rupees one hundred if the value
of plaintiff's share is less
than Rs.10,000. Rupees
two hundred if the value

is

not

less

than

Rs.10,000.
(3) "

A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that where

partition and separate possession are sought in respect of a property
which is in joint possession, the Court fee payable as per Section
34(2) would be either Rs.50/-, Rs.100/- or Rs.200/-. It is only when
partition and separate possession are sought of a property in which the
plaintiff has been excluded from possession that the Court fee has to
be computed at 3/4th of the market value of the immovable property
included in the plaintiffs share [as per Section 34(1)].
Section 50(1) of the Act of 1956 provides that if no specific
provision is made in the Act or any other law regarding the value of
any suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court,
value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee
payable under the Act shall be the same. Thus, generally the value for
the purposes of Court fee would be the value for determining
jurisdiction.
Reference in this regard may be made to the Full Bench
Judgment of this Court in KALLA YADAGIRI v. KOTHA BAL
REDDY[1], wherein it was held that what decides the jurisdiction with
regard to a particular case is the nature of the claim as brought. The
Full Bench was of the opinion that the proper method was to value the
Court fee first and take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction, for
value would control the matter for both purposes. The Full Bench
observed that it is not the value of the thing affected that settles the
value of the relief sought, but it is the value of relief sought which
determines the jurisdiction.
The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs would therefore be
determinative of the Courts jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According
to defendants 6 to 8 and 14, the relief of recovery of possession in so
far as plaint B schedule land is concerned is a separate relief which

requires to be valued independently whereas the plaintiffs contend that

it would be ancillary to the relief of partition sought by them.
The difference in the Court fee payable under Sections 34(1)
and (2) of the Act of 1956 makes it clear that it is only when separate
possession is sought on the ground of exclusion from possession
along with partition that the Court fee would be payable upon 3/4th of
the market value of the immovable property included in the plaintiffs
share. In a suit for partition simplicitor with separate possession basing
on existing joint possession, a paltry Court fee ranging between
Rs.50/- and Rs.200/- is to be paid under Section 34(2) of the Act of
1956. Neither Section 21 nor Section 29 of the Act of 1956 would have
a role to play in such a matter. Section 29 has applicability in cases
relating to suits for possession of immovable property not otherwise
provided for in the Act whereas Section 21 deals with suits relating to
immovable property subject to the other provisions of the Act. Once
provision is specifically made as to suits for partition along with
separate possession for the purpose of Court fee under Section 34,
neither of these provisions would come into operation in such suits.
In so far as the prayer for partition and separate possession of
plaint A schedule land is concerned, it would fall under Section 34(2)
of the Act of 1956 and as a fixed Court fee is prescribed thereunder,
the valuation of this relief for the purpose of jurisdiction would have to
be dealt with under Section 50(2) of the Act of 1956, which prescribes
that if the Court fee payable is at a fixed rate as per the provisions of
the Act of 1956, the value for the purpose of determining jurisdiction
would be at 3/4th of the market value of the immovable property.
Therefore, 3/4th of the market value of the plaint A schedule land
falling to the plaintiffs share would have to be taken into account for
valuing this relief for the purpose of jurisdiction. Merely because the
plaintiffs included a separate prayer for recovery of possession in so
far as plaint B schedule land is concerned, it does not detract from the

fact that the said relief was incidental to the partition of the plaint B
schedule land which had been sought by them. Pertinent to note, the
plaint B schedule land was in the permissive possession of
defendants 9 to 14, who were said to be claiming under the other
defendants and not in their own independent right. Had that been so,
the consideration would perhaps be otherwise. The main relief of
partition of plaint B schedule land along with the ancillary relief of its
separate possession squarely falls within the ambit of Section 34(1) of
the Act of 1956. This relief had to be valued at 3/4th of the market value
of the land included in the plaintiffs share. There was no necessity to
separately value the relief of recovery of possession of this land once
again for the purpose of Court fee or jurisdiction.
Thus, the valuation of the plaintiffs suit for the purpose of Court
fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction would be as under:
i)

Value of plaint A schedule land admeasuring Ac.2.36

guntas at Rs.22,500/- per acre comes to Rs.65,250/-. Value
of 3/4th share of the plaintiffs therein is Rs.48,937.50 ps. 3/4th
value thereof for the purpose of valuation and Court fee is
Rs.36,703.12 ps. Fixed Court fee paid thereon under Section
34(2) of the Act of 1956 is Rs.50/-.

ii)

Value of plaint B schedule land admeasuring Ac.4.14

guntas at Rs.22,500/- per acre comes to Rs.97,875/-. Value
of 3/4th share of the plaintiffs therein is Rs.73,406.25 ps. 3/4th
value thereof for the purpose of valuation and Court fee is
Rs.55,054.68 ps. Court fee paid thereon is Rs.2,466/-.

iii)

Value of injunction notionally fixed at Rs.1,000/- under

Section 26-C of the Act of 1956. Court Fee paid thereon is
Rs.111/-

iv)

Valuation of declaration in respect of cancellation of Form

13-B certificate notionally fixed at Rs.500/- under Section 24
of the Act of 1956. Court fee paid thereon is Rs.56/-.

In effect, the aggregate valuation of the reliefs for the purpose of

jurisdiction is Rs.36,703.12 ps. + Rs.55,054.68 ps. + Rs.1,000.00 +
Rs.500.00, which comes to Rs.93,257.80 ps. The valuation of the suit
for the purpose of jurisdiction as per Section 50(1) of the Act of 1956 is

therefore less than Rs.1 lakh and the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Gajwel, had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. The order
of the appellate Court holding to this effect therefore does not warrant
interference by this Court in revision.
The Civil Revision Petition is without merit and is accordingly
dismissed. CRPMP No.2528 of 2011 shall stand dismissed in
consequence. No order as to costs.
____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
_______ AUGUST, 2011
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O
VGSR

*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

+CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1768 OF 2011
%

-08-2011

# Venpati Sridevi and others.

Petitioners

Respondents

Vs.

$1 Atla Narsimha Reddy and others.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

! Counsel for petitioners

: Sri G.V.S.Ramaiah Naidu

^ Counsel for respondents

: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy

? CASES REFERRED:
1)

[1]

1999 (1) ALT 211 (FB)

1999 (1) ALT 211 (FB)