Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Maddi Bal Reddy And Ors. vs Merugu Anthamma And Ors. on 1 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)ALD772, 2003 A I H C 1372, (2002) 6 ANDHLD 772, (2003) 3 RECCIVR 19, (2003) 1 ANDHWR 62
ORDER T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.
1. The revision petitioners assail the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.S. No. 299 of 2000 as regards the proper Court fee to be paid on the plaint. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who seek to file the suit in O.S. No. 299 of 2000 for cancellation of the decree in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhongir. The earlier suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 was filed on 28.4.1987 for declaration of title in respect of dry land measuring 30-00 acres. The said suit was decreed on 19.4.1988. Basing upon the knowledge of the decree, the plaintiffs who are not the parties thereto are now impugning the said decree in the present suit. In the process, they valued the suit at the rate at which the property was valued in the former suit. On an objection taken by the defendants about the inadequacy of the valuation in the present suit, the Court below after having heard either side passed the impugned order. The Court below was of the view that the plaintiffs should value the suit as per the market value of the subject matter of the earlier decree.
2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners seeks to contend that it has not been mentioned in the provision, which is germane for consideration in the context viz., Section 37 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') that the fee should be computed as per the present market value of the property and therefore, the Court below is not correct in having held that the value shall be on the present market value of the property.
3. On the other hand it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in T. Tharamma v. T. Ramachandra Reddy and Ors., , that the plaint has to be valued on the market value of the property that formed the subject-matter of the compromise decree, but not on the valuation given by the plaintiff in the suit in which the compromise decree was passed. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners on the other hand seeks to place reliance upon another judgment of this Court in A.V. Reddy v. G. Venkata Narayana, , wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed shall be deemed to be the value for computation. Having examined both the judgments critically, I see no divergence of opinion inter se between them. Before adverting to the law on this aspect, it is expedient to consider the plain meaning of the section germane in the context for consideration. Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 insofar as is relevant for the present purpose, may be extracted thus:
"57. Suits, for cancellation of decrees etc :--(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be-
(a) if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed;
(b) ....................................
(2) ................ (emphasis is mine) A mere glance at the said provisions shows that the fee shall be computed in a suit filed seeking cancellation of an earlier decree passed by the Court on the value of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be, if whole decree is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed. Here in the instant case, the subject-matter of the suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 is a landed property measuring 30-00 acres. That suit was filed for declaration of title and that property was valued in accordance with Section 24 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Be that as it may, now the position seems to be obvious that in the present suit the plaintiffs are required to value this suit basing on the value of the subject matter of the earlier suit, which is now sought to be cancelled. In other words, the value of the present suit shall be the value of 30 acres of land, which is the subject mater of the former suit.
4. Another question that falls for consideration at this juncture would be that is it the present value as on the date on which the present suit came to be filed or the value of the property prevailing on the date on which the former suit was filed way back in the year 1987. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, contends that what is stated as per Section 37 being only the value of the property which is the subject matter of the earlier suit, the value prevailing as on the date of the former suit shall be taken into consideration, but not the present market value of the said property. Although on a plain consideration of Section 37 of the Act, it is not specifically mentioned there that it shall the present market value, but having regard to the fact that according to Section 37 of the Act the value of the property for which decree was passed shall be the basis one has to necessarily fall back on Section 7 of the Act, which is yet another provision germane in the context for consideration. Section 7 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as under:
"7. Determination of market value :--Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
5. As per Section 7 of the Act, if the fee is payable under this Act on the market value of the property, such a value shall be determined as on the date of the presentation of the plaint. Section 7 therefore, mandates that the suitor is expected to value the subject matter of the suit prevailing as on the date of filing of the suit. It is no doubt true that this section starts with the expression "save as otherwise provided". But as can be seen from Section 37 of the Act it will not fall foul with the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act, nor there is anything contrary, mentioned therein. A combined reading of both the provisions would make it obvious that whenever the plaintiff seeks to file a suit for cancellation of a decree passed earlier by the self-same Court, the fee shall be paid on the subject-matter of the suit which is sought to be cancelled and the market value of the subject-matter of the suit shall be determined as on the date of filing of the suit in which the earlier decree was sought to be set aside. In that view of the matter, there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir.
6. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the revision petitioners are permitted to pay the requisite fee on or before 15-1-2003. No costs.