Venpati Sridevi Reddy, Busa Aparna Laxmi, Pudari Kumar Goud and B. Satyanarayana Vs Atla Narsimha Reddy, Atla Girija Reddy, Jogannagari Shirisha Reddy and Atla Dharma Reddy

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Sanjay Kumar, J.@mdashThe 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 are in revision before this Court aggrieved by the said order and decree.

7. 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.

8. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

9. The prayer in the suit reflects that O.S. No. 56 of 2010 was a multifarious suit as defined u/s 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.

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

iv) 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/-.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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-

(3)....

14. 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)].

14. 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.

15. Reference in this regard may be made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri and others Vs. Kotha Bal Reddy, 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.

16. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs would therefore be determinative of the Court''s 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.

17. 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 u/s 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 u/s 34, neither of these provisions would come into operation in such suits.

18. In so far as the prayer for partition and separate possession of plaint A schedule land is concerned, it would fall u/s 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 u/s 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.

19. 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 u/s 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/- u/s 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/- u/s 24 of the Act of 1956. Court fee paid thereon is Rs. 56/-.

20. 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.

21. 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.