Andhra High Court
Kalla Yadagiri And Others vs Kotha Bal Reddy on 13 November, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1999 (1) ALD 222, 1999 (1) ALT 211
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: U C Banerjee, B Reddy, Chelameswar
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, J
1. The question at issue is whether the provisions of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 deal with the
valuation of suits determining pecuniary jurisdiction overriding the provisions contained in the A.P.
Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The matter is of practical importance and the reference has
been made to the Full Court to resolve the divergence of opinion.
2. We may narrate the events leading to the reference. This CRP 4858 of J994 first came up before
the learned single Judge. It is directed against the order passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge,
Siddipet in OS No.72 of 1994 on preliminary objection raised by the defendants in the said suit, who
are the petitioners herein. The objection was with regard to jurisdiction on the ground that the value
of the subject matter of the suit was shown as Rs.68,000/- and the relief of declaration and
consequential injunction under Section 24(b) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as "the Court Fees Act") was mentioned as Rs.34,000/- being half of the
value of the properties involved in the said suit. The contention of the petitioners was that, it is not
the value of the properties which determines the jurisdiction, but it is the value of the relief which
has to be constmcd as the value of the suit determining the jurisdiction. This contention was
repelled by the lower Court and it was held that the said Court had jurisdiction construing the value
of the properties involved which was at Rs.68,0007 - as the value of the suit determining the
jurisdiction, relying upon a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in G. Venkataratnam v.
G, Kesuva RaO, 1991 (1) APLJ 485. The question there was with regard to jurisdiction of the High
Court to maintain the appeal and Section 17(1) of A.P. Civil Courts Act (for short "the Civil Courts
Act") was construed to the effect that the entire value of the property is relevant for the purpose of
determining jurisdiction under the above provision and not 3/4th of the value of the subject-matter
as in Section 24 read with Section 50(1) of the Court Fees Act. It is pertinent to mention that the
value of the property in the said suit was arrived at Rs. 18,000/- and the Court-fees was paid on the
amount of Rs. 13,500/- being three-fourth of the said value under Section 24(a) of Court Fees Act
and Rs.13,500/- was construed as the value of the suit and was tried by the Court of the Subordinate
Judge and the Registry had raised objection that the appeal has to be valued tat Rs. 13,500/- and
according to the then existing provisions of Civil Courts Act, the appeal was maintainable only
before the District Court and not the High Court, but the learned single Judge overruled the
objections of the Registry holding that for appeal under Section 17(1) of Civil Courts Act, it is the
entire value of the property of Rs. 18,000/- which is the criterion and not the three-fourth of the
same as was construed in the suit. The learned Judge did not rely upon Section 5(1) of the Court
Fees Act on the ground that Section 17(1) of Civil Courts Act made a specific provision and as such,
the said provision will prevail. There is an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court quite contra
to the view taken by the learned single Judge. But, the same was not brought to the notice of the
learned Judge. The earlier judgment of the Division Bench was rendered in the case of Sidramappa
v. Sangappa, . Dealing with the provisions ofthe Court Fees Act and particularly, Section 50(1), it
was held by the Division Bench that it is the valuation which is mentioned in the suit for the purpose
of paying Courf-fees that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the property
involved.
3. When this CRP came-up for hearing, having regard to the divergent views of the learned single
Judge on one hand and of the Division Bench on the other, the learned single Judge was of the
prima facie view that the judgment of 1991 may be a good law. But, as there is a Division Bench
judgment to the contra, the learned single Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench and
the Division Bench because of the conflict, thought it fit to refer to the Bench of a larger strength for
resolving the conflict. May be, both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench were of the
view that Section 16 of Civil Courts Act lays down the criteria for valuation of the suit and that
Section 50(1) of the Court Fees Act being general and is subject to any specific provision made to the
contrary, the market value of the property is the criterion and not the value of the suit made for the
payment of the Court-fees.
4. While the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in Sidramappa's v case
(supra) and asked us to set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and to transmit
the matter to the concerned District Munsif, the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the
order of the lower Court.
5. As the matter is of utmost importance, as it occurs daily in all the subordinate Courts of the State
of Andhra Pradesh, there should not be any confusion left in the minds of either the litigant public
or the advocates appearing for them with regard to the jurisdiction which results in multiplicity of
proceedings and long-drawn litigations. While deciding the case of this magnitude, reference to a
single provision either in the Court Fees Act or in the Civil Courts Act will not do and the object,
purpose and scope of legislations i.e., Civil Courts Act and the Court Fees Act have to be gone into in
detail. What are the aspects of the respective legislations have also to be gone into. It is also to be
seen as to whether there is any overlapping of the said aspects or as to whether subject matter of
each of the Act is separate and distinct. It is needless to mention that the provisions of the Civil
Procedure Code and particularly, Section 6, only say that no Court shall try a cause beyond its
pecuniary jurisdiction. The limits of pecuniary jurisdiction arc not stated in the said provision. That
task is taken up by the Civil Courts Act, 1972. Before enacting the above law, Telangana area, a part
of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad was being governed by the provisions of Hyderabad Civil Courts
Act, while the Andhra area, carved out of erstwhile Madras State and forming separate State of
Andhra, was being governed by the provisions of the Madras Civil Courts Act. While in Hyderabad
Civil Courts Act, the original suits were tried by the Munsif Court with pecuniary jurisdiction upto
Rs.5000/-, the Subordinate Judges were invested to deal the suits with pecuniary jurisdiction over
Rs.5000/- but upto Rs.20,000/-. District Court had unlimited jurisdiction over Rs.20,000/-. In
Madras Civil Courts Act, while pecuniary jurisdiction was prescribed for Munsif Magistrate upto a
limit, the Court of Subordinate Judge was having unlimited jurisdiction. Occasionally, the suits were
being withdrawn to the Court of the District Judge. By repealing both the Acts, as also the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Small Causes Courts Act, 1313 Fasli, the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act
No.19 of 1972) was enacted. The said Act originally followed the pattern of Madras Civil Courts Act.
But, a later amendment effective from December, 1997 (A.P. Act No.29 of 1997) created a three-tier
system for trying the original civil matters with Munsifs (upto Rs.1,00,000/-), Subordinate Judges
(above Rs.1,00,000/- and upto Rs.5,00,000/-) and District Judges (unlimited jurisdiction above
Rs.5 lakhs). Section 3 speaks of establishment of a City Civil Court for the District of Hyderabad and
appointment of Judges to the said Court like Chief Judge, Additional Chief Judges, Additional
Judges of the rank of Subordinate Judge and Assistant Judges of the rank of District Munsif. The
jurisdiction of the Judges of the City Civil Court in original suits and other proceedings is earmarked
in Section 5 of the Act. Section 6 speaks of distribution of work in the City Civil Court. Section 9
prescribes forum for filing appeals against the orders/decisions rendered by the City Civil Court.
Part-Ill comprises of the establishment and constitution of Courts in Districts other than the District
of Hyderabad. Section 10 deals with establishment of District Courts, Section 1 1 deals with
appointment of Additional District Judges, Section 12 deals with establishment of the Courts of
Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs, Section 13 deals with the appointment of Principal and
Additional Sub-ordinate Judges and District Munsifs, Section 14 deems the existing Courts as the
one constituted under the Act. Section 15 deals with the territorial limits of the District Courts,
Subordinate Courts and District Munsifs. Section 16 deals with the jurisdiction of the above Courts
in original suits and other proceedings. Section 17 deals with appeals against the orders/decisions
rendered by the Courts mentioned in Section 16. Section 18 deals with the establishment of Courts
for Subordinate Judges for two or more districts. Section 19 deals with the exercise by Subordinate
Judge of jurisdiction of District Judge in certain proceedings. Section 21 prescribes the places for the
sitting of the Courts. Section 22 prescribes the Court working days, Section 23 vests the District
Judge with control over all Courts in a District, Section 24 confers power of small causes
jurisdiction. Section 26 deals with the administration of law by Courts in deciding questions
regarding succession, inheritance, marriage etc. Section 28 deals with the temporary discharge of
the duties of the District Judge or the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Section 29 requires witness or
party to suit to make oath or affirmation. Section 30 envisages duties of ministerial officers of the
Court. Section 31 prescribes the limit of vacation as two months in a year. Section 32 deals with
appointment of a Vacation Civil Judge during vacation. Section 33 empowers the High Court to
receive suits and appeals when no Vacation Civil Judge is appointed.
6. The title of the Court Fees Act is "The Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956"
and it has to be borne in mind that it deals with the valuation of the suits as also the quantum of
Court-fees payable thereon. It is a law relating lo Court-fees and valuation of the suit in the State of
Andhra Pradesh. "Court" is defined under Section 3(ii) as any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and
includes a Tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction under any special or local law to decide
questions affecting the rights of parties. Section 4 deals with the levy of fees in Courts and public
offices. Section 5 deals with the collection of proper fees on documents. Section 6 deals with the
multifarious suits, Section 7 deals with the determination of market value as on the date of the
presentation of the plaint, Section 8 deals with the set-off or counterclaim and levying the fees in the
same manner as a plaint. Section 10 requires the statement of particulars of subject matter of suit
and plaintiff's valuation thereof and Section 11 invests the Courts to decide as to proper fees. Section
12 deals with the relinquisliment of portion of claim, Section 13 deals with the fees payable on
written statements, Section 14 deals with fees payable on appeals, Section 15 deals with fees payable
on petitions, applications etc. Section 16 confers powers on Court-fee Examiners relating to
valuation of subject matter and sufficiency of fees, Section 17 provides for enquiry and Commission
for the purpose of deciding whether the subject matter of a suit or civil proceeding has been properly
valued and whether the fees paid is sufficient. Section 18 contemplates notice to the State
Government in any enquiry relating to the fees payable on the plaint, written statement, petition,
memorandum of appeal or other document relates insofar as such valuation affects the fees payable.
Chapter IV deals with computation of fees and Section 19 says that the fees payable under this Act
shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter, as also Chapter V11I and
Schedules I and II. Section 20 deals with suits for money and the fees shall be computed on the
amount claimed. Section 21 deals with suits for immovable property and fees is computed on
three-fourths of the market value of the property, subject to other provisions of the Act. Section 22
deals with suits for maintenance and annuities and in a suit for maintenance, the fees payable is on
the amount claimed for one year and insofar as the annuities are concerned, on five times the
amount claimed to be payable for one year. Section 23 deals with suits for movable property and
where the subject matter has a market value, on such value or where the subject matter has no
market value on the amount at which such relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief
is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. Section 24 deals with suits for declaration coupled with
possession or consequential injunction. Section 25 deals with the adoption suits and the fees is
computed on one-half of the market value of the movable and immovable property involved in, or
affected by such declaration or on Rs.500/- whichever is higher. Section 26 deals with injunction
suits and under subsection (a) if the plaintiffs title to the property is denied, fees shall be computed
on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs.200/- whichever is higher and under
subsection (b), where the relief sought relates to the plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell, print or
exhibit any mark, etc., fees shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in
the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher and under sub-section
(c) whether the subject matter of the suit has the market value or not, fees shall be paid on the
amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the
Court, whichever is higher. Section 27 deals with suits relating to trust property and the fees shall be
computed on one-fifth of the market value of the property subject to a maximum fees of Rs.200/- or
where the property has no market value, on rupees one thousand. Section 27 (2) is significant which
says "Where the property has no market value, value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction
of Courts shall be the amount stated in the plaint." Section 28 deals with suits for possession under
the Specific Relief Act and the fees shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property
or Rs.200/- whichever is higher. Section 29 deals with suits for possession not otherwise provided
for and the fees shall be computed on three-fourths of the market value of the property or on Rupees
3007- whichever is higher. Section 30 deals with suits relating to easements, be it dominant or the
servient owner, fees shall be paid on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or
at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. Section 31 deals with suits relating
to mortgages and the fees shall be computed on the amount claimed. Section 32 deals with suits for
accounts and the fees shall be paid on the amount estimated in the plaint, of course, if there is
excess amount determined over the ascertained amount, then for the difference, the Court-fees has
to be paid. Section 33 deals with suit for dissolution of partnership and the fees shall be computed
on the value of the plaintiffs share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff. Under subsection
(2) of Section 33, the plaintiff has to deposit the difference for the purpose of final decree and under
sub-section (3), no final decree shall be passed in favour of the defendant until the fees computed on
the amount or the value of his share is paid. Section 34 deals with partition suits and under
sub-section (I), the fees 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. Under
sub-section (2) which deals with the joint possession, fees shall be paid at the following rates:
When the plaint is presented to:
(i) a District Munsif's Rupees fifty Court
(ii) a Subordinate Judges Rupees one hundred
Court or a District Court if the value of the
plaintiffs share is less
thanRs.10,000/-.
Rupees two hundred,
if the value is not less
thanRs.10,000/-.
Section 35 deals with suit for joint possession and the fees 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. Section 36 deals with the administration suits and the fees is levied on the plaint
at the rates specified in Section 47. Section 37 deals with suits for cancellation of decrees. Fees 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) if a part of the decree or other
document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property. Section 37(2)
says that if the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split-up and the
relief claimed relates only to particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's
share in any such property, tecs shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the
amount of (he decree, whichever is less. Section 38 deals with suits to set aside attachment and the
fees shall be computed on the amount for which the property was attached or on one-fourth of the
market value of the property attached, whichever is less. Section 39 deals with the suit for specific
performance. In sub-section (a), fees is computed on the amount of consideration in a contract of
sale, under sub-section (b), it is computed on the amount agreed to be secured by the mortgage in a
contract of mortgage, under subsection (c), it is computed on the aggregate amount of the penalty or
premium and of the average of the annual rent agreed to be paid in a contract of lease and under
subsection (d) in the case of a contract of exchange, it is computed on the amount of consideration
or as the case may be, on the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market
value of the immovable property sought to be taken in exchange and under sub-section (e) in other
cases, where the consideration for the promise sought to be enforced has a market value, the fees is
computed on the market value of the property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable
property or where such consideration has no market value, at the rates specified under Section 47.
Section 40 deals with suits between landlords and tenants and the Court-fees is on the amount of
rent for the immovable property to which the suit relates payable for the year next before the date of
presenting the plaint. The rent includes damages for use and occupation payable by a tenant holding
over. Under Section 42, in a suit under A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, fees shall be
computed on one-half of the market value of the property affected by the determination of the
boundary or on Rs.300/- whichever is higher. Section 43 deals with suits to alter or cancel entry in a
register and the fixed fees payable is Rs.15. The said suit deals with alteration or cancellation of any
entry in a register of the names of proprietors of revenue paying estates. Under Section 44, suits
relating to public matters, the fees payable shall be Rs.50 and under Section 45 which is an
inter-pleader suit, fees shall be payable on the plaint at the rates specified in Section 47. Subsection
(3) of Section 45 is important as it states "Value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of
Courts shall be the amount of the debt, or the sum of money or the market value of the movable
property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property to which the suit relates."
Chapter V comprising of Sections 50 and 51 under caption "Valuation of Suits" will be dealt with
later. Chapter VI deals with Probates, Letters of Administration and Certificates of Administration,
while Chapter VII deals with refunds and remissions and Chapter VIII contains miscellaneous
provisions. The repeal and savings clause is contained under Section 79 and the Court Fees Act,
1870 (Central enactment) and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act) were repealed so far as the
application of the said statutes in the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned.
7. As seen from the above, the subject-matter of Civil Courts Act is constitution of several civil
Courts investing them with jurisdiction to try all suits/matters of civil nature within certain
pecuniary and territorial limits and allied matters mentioned above, for the administration of civil
Justice. The grading of the Courts in their hierarchy has reference to the pecuniary and territorial
limits rather than to Ihe nature and kind of the subject matter which they are empowered to deal
with. The Civil Courts Act does not make any attempt to define as to what is the value of the suit or
the subject matter of the civil proceeding. It does not also attempt to prescribe the manner and
mode of valuation of the suits or Court-fees payable thereon. The true aspect of the Civil Courts Act
is to establish the Courts, appoint the Presiding Officer thereto, spell out the working days and also
limit the vacation in a calendar year and provide Ihe territorial and pecuniary limits of each of the
hierarchy of Courts with corresponding provisions for appellate jurisdiction. Mode and manner of
valuation of the subject matter of civil cause is outside the purview of the civil Courts Act and mere
compliance of provisions of Civil Courts Act will not lead us anywhere, as mode, manner and
method of valuation and the Court-Fees to be collected thereon have got to be determined and that
is done only by one statute i.e. The Court Fees Act, which in fact, is anterior to the Civil Courts Acl,
1972. If the Civil Courts Act wanted to explain the provisions of the Court Fees Act or to make a
departure, the same would have been certainly stated in the Civil Courts Act. Bui, the said
Legislation did not choose to do so. As such, for the administration of Justice to be carried out,
implementation of both the Acts i.e., Court Fees Act and the Civil Courts Act is necessary and in the
absence of either of the Acts, the Administration of Justice would be at stand-still, for, the Court
Fees Act is unworkable in isolation, as it will only determine the value of the suit and the Court-fees
payable thereon without prescribing the forum to receive and adjudicate the cause and likewise,
Civil Courts Act in isolation will be rendered otiose for the reason that no valuation can be done for
the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. As such, both the Acts, though, independent in their scope,
are inter-dependent for the administration of Justice. The words "amount or value of the subject
matter" in conjunction with words "suits and proceedings" under Section 16(2) of Civil Courts Act
do not connote the entire value of the property involved, be it movable or immovable or right
attached to the same. What Section 15 prescribes is the territorial jurisdiction and Section 16
prescribes only the pecuniary jurisdiction and while the territorial jurisdiction is one prescribed by a
notification issued for that purpose by the Government after consultation with the High Court, the
pecuniary jurisdiction is dependent upon the valuation of the suit to be made only under the Court
Fees Act and not otherwise. Section 17 deals with filing of the appeal and there also the words
"amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding" aremenlioned.
8. 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. For instance, in a suit for redemption of mortgage, the valuation is on the
amount due to the mortgagee, which is the value of the relief and the suit is'not valued taking the
value of the property. So also, in the case of foreclosure, the relief is valued on the basis of the total
amount due and not of the value of the property mortgaged. In a suit for partition of joint family
property, the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the value of the share claimed by the plaintiff
and not of the whole estate. In a suit for injunction simplicitor, it is the value of the relief claimed
and not on the value of the property involved. In a suit for eviction against the tenant, the value is
the annual rental value and not the value of the property involved. In a suit for specific performance
of enforcement of agreement, it is the consideration amount stated in the agreement which forms
the valuation of the suit and not the value of the property on the date of the presentation of the
plainl. We need not multiply the instances and suffice it to say that 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 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. Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and not A.P. Civil
Courts Act, 1972. There arc several judicial precedents supporting our view that the value of the
relief for the purpose of Court-fees determines the jurisdiction and we need not state those plethora
of precedents and suffice it to mention a judgment of the Supreme Court directly on the point
dealing with analogous provision in the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, in S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp. Sathappa
Chettiar v. S.Rm.Ar.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, . It is apt to extract the relevant portion of the said
judgment:
"......There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the value for
the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of Court-fees
and that is natural enough. The computation of Court-fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) of the
Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff
exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of Court-fees, that determines the value for
jurisdiction. The value for Court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in
such cases; but it is the value of the Court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance.
It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be detennincd. The result is that it is the
amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of Court-fees that
determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa"
9. In view of \vhat is stated supra, we hold that Section 16 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 is not
concerned with the mode of valuation of the suits and the valuation of the suits for determining the
jurisdiction is outside the purview of the said Act. This is equally applicable to the appeals also,
referred to in Section 17 of the above Act. Section 50 with its sub-sections (1) and (2) of the A.P.
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is the only provision dealing with the value of any suit for
the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Courts. Likewise, the value of the appeal for the
purpose of jurisdiction is governed by only Section 49 of A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1956. In the circumstances, we uphold the view taken by the Division Bench in Sidramappa v.
Sangappa (supra) and overrule the view taken by the learned single Judge in G. Venkatarattiam v. G.
Kesava Rao (supra).
10. The CRP is allowed. No costs.
Kalla Yadagiri And Others vs Kotha Bal Reddy on 13 November, 1994
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/623302/ 8
