Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Majeti Ravi vs Majeti Kameswara Rao And Others on 29 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(5)ALD442, 2001(4)ALT481
ORDER
1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 29-1-1999 made in OP No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2. The petitioner/petitioner-plaintiff filed OP No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 read with Section 26 and Order VII, Rule 1 CPC claiming the relief of partition of plaint A schedule properties into two equal shares. The Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 had raised a preliminary objection relating to pecuniary jurisdiction to the effect that the value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.6,00,000/- and hence it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and prayed for return of the plaint. The Court below relying upon the judgment reported in G. Venkatarathnam v. G. Kesava Rao, 1991 (1) APLJ 485, held that for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction the entire value of the subject-matter of the suit has to be taken into consideration and inasmuch as the value of the suits in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge is only upto Rs.5,00,000/- and since the entire value of the subject-matter of the suit is Rs.6,00,000/- the plaint has to be returned. In fact the Court below relying upon the decision stated supra had returned the plaint and aggrieved by the same the present revision is filed by the petitioner plaintiff.
3. Mr. Ravi Kumar, representing Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable inasmuch as the view expressed in the decision stated supra has been overruled by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in K. Yadaiah and others v. Kotha Bali Reddy, . The learned Counsel for the petitioner had brought to my notice the relevant portion of the Full Bench judgment wherein it was held that the valuation of the suit depends upon the value of the subject-matter thereof. The Full Bench had observed at Para 8 of the judgment as follows:
"What decides the jurisdiction with regard to a particular case is the nature of the claim as brought. The plaintiff is bound to assess the relief he claims on the basis of the benefit he seeks to obtain by filing of the suit. The proper method is to value for the Court fees first and take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction, for, value will control the matter for Court fees and jurisdiction. It is not the value of the thing affected that settles the value of the relief sought, but it is the value of the relief sought, which determines the jurisdiction. "Subject-matter" is not the same thing as property. Subject-matter is the substance for adjudication and it has reference to the right which the plaintiff seeks to enforce and the valuation of the suit depends upon the value of the subject-matter thereof and the same is valued according to the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and not A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972. The value of the relief for the purpose of Court fees determines the jurisdiction."
4. Thus in view of the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Full Bench mentioned supra it is clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court the entire value of the subject-matter need not be taken into consideration and the value relating to half share i.e., a relief claimed by the petitioner plaintiff alone has to be taken into consideration while deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence the order of the Court below in returning the plaint suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Hence the order dated 29-1-1999 made in OP No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to proceed further with the OP in accordance with law.
5. Civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.