Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt.Waheeda Begum, W/O.(Late) ... vs Md.Yakub, S/O.(Late) Md.Ishaque,Aged ... on 15 July, 2013
Author: L.Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L.Narasimha Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3472 of 2011 Dated 15-07-2013 Smt.Waheeda Begum, W/o.(Late) Md.Ishaque, aged about 76 years, R/o.8-3- 229/D/73/H,Venkatagiri, Yosufguda, Hyderabad and others...Petitioners Md.Yakub, S/o.(Late) Md.Ishaque,aged about 43 years, R/o.5-9-71/1,Roshan Manzil, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners:Sri Vedula Srinivas. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi. <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3472 OF 2011 ORDER:
The petitioners filed O.S.No.450 of 2004 in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge, (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Obviously, because the petitioners are not in joint possession of the property, they paid the ad volerem court fee of Rs.1,80,026/-. Nearly seven years after the filing of the suit, a docket order was passed on 04.02.2011 requiring the office to address a letter to the Joint Sub Registrar to furnish the valuation of the property as on 04.05.2004. In response to the same, the Joint Sub Registrar addressed a letter dated 31.03.2011 taking a view that the valuation of the property is Rs.19,800/- per square yard. The trial Court passed an order on 28.07.2011 directing the petitioners to pay the deficit Court Fee. The same is challenged in this revision.
Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Of-late, the Government is virtually treating the activity of registration as principal source of income and reduced the entire exercise into a commercial venture. Indiscriminate increase in the basic valuation with the sole objective of getting more and more stamp duty and registration fee has only added to inflation and shooting up of the prices. The Courts are also slowly falling into that very line.
The Court fee was paid while filing the suit on the basis of a Valuation Certificate dated 04.05.2004 issued by the concerned authorities, wherein the value of the property was shown at Rs.11,000/- per square yard. One of the respondents herein obtained a certificate dated 01.05.2004 to the effect that the value of the property is Rs.16,500/-. That gave rise to the passing of the docket order dated 04.02.2011 and a reference was made to the Joint Sub- Registrar. He took advantage of the situation and quoted an astronomical figure. Now, the Court is requiring the petitioners to pay the difference amount.
The whole exercise undertaken by the trial Court is untenable. Basically, it is for the Court to satisfy about the value of the suit, that too, when the suit was filed. It is not a matter of contest between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Court cannot take into account, the inconsistent figures furnished by the officials of the Registration department. The very fact that as many as three figures are furnished by the officials of the department discloses the method of their functioning. Instead of deprecating such a stand, the Court felt that it must obediently follow those figures. At this rate, there cannot be any finality. The respondents who got the letter from the department may manipulate another communication from a still higher authority. A Division Bench of this Court, in Satyanarayana Vs. Om Prakash and others1 held:
As laid down by the Supreme Court, the defendant is not aggrieved by any such decision and therefore merely because he is given a right to contest the valuation, he cannot be permitted to use the same as a weapon to protract the litigation. Only in cases where the 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 is a preliminary issue, if it is satisfied that the jurisdictional question is involved. In such cases only, the defendant can move the higher Courts on the ground that the dispute regarding court-fee is not tried as a preliminary issue. In other disputes relating to the payment of court-fee, it should be left to the discretion of the court to try the same as preliminary issue or to try jointly along with other issues.
Admittedly, there was no dispute as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. The whole exercise was redundant.
The order passed by the trial Court is set aside. It appears that the Court has spent most of its time on this totally irrelevant issue. It is directed that the trial Court shall take up the suit forthwith for hearing and dispose of it on merits, within six (6) months from today. If the suit is not disposed of as directed, the Officer shall be under obligation to submit explanation.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision shall stand disposed of. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 15th, 2013.