HIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH

****

CIVILMISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNo.609of2025

Between:

ValladasiSriMounika@Sirisha

.....APPELLANT

AND

AnumulaUshaLakshmiand9others

.....RESPONDENTS

DATEOFJUDGMENTRESERVED :11.02.2025

DATEOFJUDGMENTPRONOUNCED:17.03.2026

DATEOFJUDGMENTUPLOADED :17.03.2026

SUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL:

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM

1.WhetherReportersofLocalnewspapers

maybeallowedtoseetheJudgments?

Yes/No

2.Whetherthecopiesofjudgmentmaybe

markedtoLawReporters/Journals

Yes/No

3.WhetherYourLordshipswishtoseethe

faircopyoftheJudgment?

Yes/No

_______________________

RAVINATHTILHARI,J

____________________________

MAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM,J

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

2

*THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM

+CIVILMISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNo.609of2025

%17.03.2026

Between:

ValladasiSriMounika@Sirisha

.....APPELLANT

AND

AnumulaUshaLakshmiand9others

.....RESPONDENTS

!CounselfortheAppellant :SriS.S.Prasad,Sr.Advocate

AssistedbySriN.Chidamabara

Sastry

CounselfortheRespondents1&2:SriI.MadhuBabu,

RepresentingSmt.S.A.V.Ratnam

<Gist:

>HeadNote:

?CasesReferred:

1.1991SCCOnLineAP1

2.1998SCCOnLineAP648(FB)

3.1964SCCOnLineAP100

4.AIR1958SC245

5.(2022)13SCC221

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

3

THEHON’BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON’BLSRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM

CIVILMISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNo.609of2025

JUDGMENT:(perHon’bleSriJusticeRaviNathTilhari)

HeardSriS.S.Prasad,learnedSeniorAdvocate,assistedbySriN.

ChidambaraSastry,learnedcounselfortheappellant,andSriI.MadhuBabu,

learnedcounsel,representingSmt.S.A.V.Ratnam,learnedcounselfor

respondentsNos.1&2,onthepointofmaintainabilityoftheappeal,inviewof

theobjectionsraisedbytheRegistry.

Facts:

2.RespondentNos.1to3filedO.S.No.25of2025intheCourtoftheCivil

Judge(SeniorDivision),Pithapuramagainsttheappellant(1

st

defendant)and

therespondentNos.4to10(defendantsNo.2to8).Thesuitwasfor

declarationandinjunction.Theprayerinthesuitreadsasunder:

“IX.Prayer:

ItishumblyprayedthatthisHon’bleCourtmaybepleasedtoissuea

decreeandjudgmentinfavouroftheplaintiffsandagainstthedefendants:

1.ByDeclaringtheplaintiffsandastheabsoluteownerandpossessorofthesuit

scheduleproperty;

2.ForconsequentialinjunctionrestrainingtheDefendants,theirmen,agents,and

otherclaimingtothemfromeverinterferingwiththepeacefulpossessionand

enjoymentoftheplaintiffovertheplaintscheduleproperty.

3.ForconsequentiallydeclaringthattheSettlementDeedNo.2806/2025,dated

24-03-2025asshamdocumentandisnullandvoid.

4.Forthecostsofthesuit.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

4

5.AndforotherreliefandreliefsasthisHon’bleCourtmaydeemfitandproper

inthecircumstancesofthecase.”

3.Theplaintiffs/respondentsalsofiledI.A.No.306of2025forgrantof

temporaryinjunction,whichaftercontestwasallowedvideOrderdated

18.07.2025,grantingtemporaryinjunctionrestrainingthedefendantsinthesuit

andtheirmenfrominterferingwiththepeacefulpossessionandenjoymentof

theplaintiffsoverthepetitionschedulepropertyuntildisposalofthesuit.

4.ChallengingtheOrderdated18.07.2025,thepresentcivil

miscellaneousappealhasbeenfiledbytheappellant/1

st

defendantinthesuit.

OfficeObjection:

5.Anofficeobjectionwithrespecttothemaintainabilityoftheappealon

thegroundofpecuniaryjurisdictionwasraised.Theofficeobjectionisas

follows:

“1.PleaseclarifyandstateastohowthisCMASRisentertainablein

thisHon’bleHighCourtwithregardtopecuniaryjurisdictionsincethe

I.A.306/2025inO.S.No.25/2025isfromCourtofSeniorCivilJudgewhere

uponCMAliesinDistrictCourt.

2.PleaseverifytheplaintforvaluationofAppealsinceaspertheplaint

copy,“Relieffordeclarationandconsequentialinjunction,thevalueis

Rs.33,33,300/-“andtoappealinthisHon’bleCourt,thevalueistobemore

than50lakhsfromtheCourtofSeniorCivilJudgeasperAmendedAct

26/2018ofCivilCourtsAct.”

ResponseoftheAppellant:

6.Learnedcounselfortheappellant,representedtheaboveCMAinitially

(SR)No.30355of2025withthefollowingnote,submittingthattheCMAwas

maintainableinthisCourt.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

5

“Thevalueofthesubjectmatterproperties,asperthevaluesgivenin

theplaint,is66lakhsandodd.Forthepurposeofcourtfee,inasuitfor

declarationandinjunction,undertheprovisionsintheAPCourtfeesandsuit

valuationAct1956,courtfeewaspaidononehalfofthevalueoftheproperties.

ThatcannotbetakenasthevalueofthesuitortheaboveCMAforthepurpose

ofjurisdiction.Inthecircumstances,asthevalueofthesubjectmatterinthe

suitismorethan50lakhsthisCMAismaintainableinthisHon’bleCourt.If

officehasstillanyobjectionthemattermaybeplacedbeforetheHon’bleCourt

forappropriateorders.”

OrdersinthisAppealonOfficeObjection:

7.TheRegistry,however,notbeingsatisfiedwiththeexplanation,listed

thematterforOrdersoftheCourttothemaintainabilityoftheCMA(SR)inthe

HighCourt.

8.On29.08.2025aCoordinateBenchofthisCourtprimafaciebeing

satisfiedthattheobjectionraisedbytheOfficewasnotsustainable,directed

theRegistrytonumbertheappeal,whichhasbeennumbedasCMA.No.609of

2025.TheOrderdated29.08.2025readsasunder:

“HeardMr.S.S.Prasad,learnedSeniorCounselappearingforthe

appellant,whomadesubmissionswithreferencetotheprovisionsoftheA.P.

CourtFees&SuitsValuationAct,1956.Healsoplacedrelianceonthe

decisionreportedinGunnaVenkataratnamvs.GunnaKesavaRao,1991

SCCOnLineAP1.

Primafacie,wearesatisfiedthattheobjectionraisedbytheOfficeis

notsustainable.However,Mr.MadhuBabu,learnedcounselstatesthathefiled

Caveatonbehalfoftherespondents/plaintiffsandraisedobjectionwithregard

tomaintainabilityofthepresentappeal.Whiletakingnoteofitandgranting

timeforfilingcounteraffidavit.Registryisdirectedtonumbertheappeal.

Listtheappealon03.09.2025.”

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

6

9.AspertheaforesaidOrder,theCoordinateBenchwassatisfiedprima

faciethattheobjectionraisedbytheOfficewasnotsustainableandrecording

thesame,theCoordinateBenchgrantedtimetothelearnedcounselforthe

Caveator/plaintiffs/respondentstofilecounteraffidavitonthepointof

maintainability.

10.Thereafter,on30.09.2025theCoordinateBenchpassedthe

followingOrder:

“Mr.S.S.Prasad,learnedSeniorCounselappearingfortheappellant

fairlystatesthatthedecisionofalearnedSingleJudgeinGunna

Venkataratnamvs.GunnaKesavaRao,1991SCCOnLineAP1,onwhich

heplacedreliance,isover-ruled.However,hestatesthattheHon’bleSupreme

Courthadanoccasiontodealwiththedecisiononwhichthelearnedsingle

Judgeplacedreliance.Hewantstomakefurthersubmissions.

Athisrequest,listtheappealon17.09.2025

Mr.O.ManoharReddy,learnedSeniorCounselappearedonbehalfof

therespondents.”

11.ItisevidentfromtheaforesaidtwoOrdersthattheCoordinate

Benchwasinitiallyprimafaciesatisfiedinviewofthejudgmentinthecaseof

GunnaVenkataratnamv.GunnaKesavaRao

1

uponwhichreliancewas

placedbythelearnedcounselfortheappellant,butonthenextdate

03.09.2025learnedcounselfortheappellantsubmittedthatthesaidjudgment

hadbeenoverruled,andhadalsosubmittedthattheHon’bleApexCourthad

anoccasiontodealwiththeissue.

12.ThisishowthematterhascomeupbeforethisCourttoconsiderthe

OfficeObjectionthoughtheCMAhasbeennumbered.

1

1991SCCOnLineAP1

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

7

Pointforconsideration/issue:

13.Theissueis,ifthepresentappealismaintainableintheHighCourt

oritshouldhavebeenfiledbeforetheCourtofDistrictJudge.Theissuerests

ontheanswertothequestionwhatisthevaluationoftheappeal.Inother

words,aboveRs.50lakhssoastobefiledintheHighCourtoruptoRs.50

lakhsinwhichcasetheappealistobefiledbeforethelearnedDistrictJudgeas

theOrderunderchallengeistheOrderpassedbythelearnedSeniorCivilJudge.

Submissionsofthelearnedcounselfortheappellant:

14.SriS.S.Prasad,learnedseniorcounsel,assistedbySriN.

ChidambaraSastry,learnedcounselfortheappellant,submittedthatthe

valuationofthesuitaspertheplaintavermentsisRs.66,66,600/-asper

valuationcertificateissuedbySub-Registrar’sOffice,Tuni.Hesubmittedthat

aspertheplaintiffs,thesuitwaswithintheterritorialasalsothepecuniary

jurisdictionofthelearnedSeniorCivilJudge,Pithapuram.Hesubmittedthat

thoughtheCourtfeewaspaidonthehalfofthevalueofthepropertyi.e.,on

Rs.33,33,300/-forthereliefofdeclarationandconsequentialinjunction,

amountingtoRs.35,826/-asperSection24(b)ofScheduleIoftheA.P.Court

FeeandSuitValuationAct,buthissubmissionisthatthevaluationofthesuit

forthepurposesofjurisdictionandvaluationforthepurposeofthecourtfeeis

different.TheCourtfeeistobepaidinthesuitofthepresentnatureasper

Section24(b)ofScheduleIoftheA.P.CourtFeeandSuitValuationAct,but

thevaluationofthesubjectmatterofthepropertyaspervaluationcertificate,

shallbeashasbeensomentionedbytheplaintiffsthemselves.So,takingthe

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

8

valuationofthepropertyasRs.66,66,600/-whichisthevaluationofthe

propertyinthesuit,thesameshallbevaluationforthepurposeoffilingthe

appealanditbeingaboveRs.50lakhs,theappealshalllietotheHighCourt.

Hereferredtotheplaintparas-VIandVIIwhichreadasunder:

“VICourtFee:

AspertheValuationcertificateissuedbySROTUNIthevalueofthe

propertyisRs.66,66,600/-.

Thesuitisvaluedonthehalfofthevalueofthepropertyi.e.,on

Rs.33,33,300/-forthereliefofdeclarationandconsequentialinjunctionand

courtfeeofRs.35,826asperSec.24(b)ofScheduleIoftheA.P.Courtfeeand

SuitValuationAct.

AstheprayerforInjunctionisaconsequentialrelieftotheDeclaration

oftitle,noseparatecourtfeeispaidforthereliefofInjunction.

VII.Jurisdiction:

AsthepropertyinquestionissituatedwithintheTerritoriallimitsofthis

Court,thisCourthasbothpecuniaryandterritorialjurisdictiontoentertainthe

suit.”

15.Learnedcounselfortheappellantfurthersubmittedthatthe

valuationforthepurposesoftheCourtfeepaidcannotbetakenasthevalueof

thesuitorofthecivilappealforthepurposeofjurisdiction.

16.LearnedcounselfortheappellantsubmittedthatinGunna

Venkataratnam(supra)thelearnedsingleJudgeofthisCourtheldthatthe

entirevalueofthesubjectmatterisrelevantforthepurposeofdeterminingthe

jurisdictionandnotthevalue(3/4

th

asinthatcase)ofthesubjectmatterfor

thepurposesofthecourtfee.Inthesaidcase,thevalueoftheappealforthe

purposesofthejurisdictionwastakenthesameasthevalueofthesubject

matterandnotthevalueonwhichthecourtfeewaspaid.Hehoweverfurther

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

9

submittedthatthejudgmentofthelearnedsingleJudgewasoverruledbythe

FullBenchofthisCourtinKallaYadagiriv.KothaBalReddy

2

.TheFull

BenchheldthatSection16oftheA.P.CivilCourtsAct,1972wasnotconcerned

withthemodeofvaluationofthesuitsandthevaluationofthesuitsfor

determiningthejurisdictionisoutsidethepurviewoftheAct1972.Thatwas

equallyapplicabletotheappealsalso,referredtoinSection17ofthesaidAct.

TheFullBenchheldthatSection50(1)&(2)oftheA.P.CourtFeeandSuits

ValuationAct1956wastheonlyprovisiondealingwiththevalueofanysuitfor

thepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionoftheCourts.Likewise,thevalueof

theappealforthepurposeofjurisdictionwasgovernedbyonlySection49of

A.P.CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956.So,theFullBenchheldthatfor

thepurposeofjurisdictionthevalueoftheappealwouldbegovernedonlyby

Section49oftheA.P.CourtFeeandSuitValuationAct.Inotherwordsits

valuationforthepurposeofthecourtfeewouldgovernthejurisdictionaswell.

Learnedcounselfortheappellantsubmittedthattherewasaprevious

judgmentbytheDivisionBenchinSidramappav.Sangappa

3

whichhad

takenthatviewinacasegovernedbySection50(1)oftheCourtFee&Suit

ValuationAct,thatthevalueofthesubjectmatterfordeterminingthe

jurisdictionshallbethesameandnotdifferentfromthevalueofthesubject

matterforcomputingthecourtfee.TheDivisionBenchjudgmentwasnot

takennoteofbythelearnedsingleJudgeinGunnaVenkataratnam(supra).

HesubmittedthattheFullBenchplacedrelianceonthejudgmentofthe

2

1998SCCOnLineAP648(FB)

3

1964SCCOnLineAP100

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

10

Hon’bleApexCourtinS.RM.AR.S.SP.SathappaChettiarv.S.RM.AR.

RM.RamanathanChettiar

4

,inwhichtheHon’bleApexCourtheldthatthe

amountatwhichtheplaintiffhadvaluedthereliefsoughtfor,forthepurposes

ofcourtfeesthatdeterminesthevalueforjurisdictioninthesuitaswellbutnot

viceversa.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatsubsequentlythejudgmentofthe

Hon’bleApexCourtinS.RM.AR.S.SP.SathappaChettiar(supra)was

explainedandclarifiedinStateofPunjabv.DevBratSharma

5

.Inhis

submission,inviewofsuchclarification,theverybasisoftheFullBench

judgmentistakenawayandconsequently,hesubmittedthatthejudgmentby

thelearnedsingleJudgeinGunnaVenkataratnam(supra)shouldholdthe

fieldandnottheFullBenchandsoforthepurposesofjurisdiction,itisthe

valuationofthesuitsubjectpropertyandnotthevaluationforthepurposesof

thecourtfeethatshoulddeterminethejurisdiction.

17.Thus,inthesubmissionofthelearnedSeniorCounselforthe

appellant,thevaluationofthesuitsubjectpropertyaspertheplaintiffhimself

beingRs.66,66,600/-andthesamebeingaboveRs.50lakhstheappealshould

lietotheHighCourtandnottotheDistrictCourt.TheOfficeObjection

thereforedeservedtobeoverruled.

Submissionsofthelearnedcounselfortherespondents:

18.Ontheotherhand,learnedcounselfortherespondents/plaintiffs

submittedthatthejudgmentbythelearnedsingleJudgewascontrarytothe

previousDivisionBenchjudgmentandtheFullBenchhavingoverruled,the

4

AIR1958SC245

5

(2022)13SCC221

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

11

learnedsingleJudgejudgmentandhavingaffirmedtheviewtakenbythe

DivisionBenchjudgmentandtheFullBenchjudgmentbeingbasedonthe

judgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourt,thelawaslaiddownbytheFullBenchis

tobefollowedandinviewthereofforthepurposesofjurisdictionalsoitisthe

valuationonwhichthecourtfeeisdeterminedshallbetakenasthevaluation

forthepurposeofjurisdiction.ThesamebeingRs.33,33,300/-i.e.,below

Rs.50lakhstheappealisnotmaintainableintheHighCourt,butshouldbefiled

beforethelearnedCourtofDistrictJudge.HesubmittedthattheOffice

Objectiondeservedtobesustainedandtheappealdeservedtobedismissedon

thegroundoflackofpecuniaryjurisdiction.

Analysis:

19.Wehaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsandperusedthe

materialonrecordandalsogonethroughtherelevantprovisionsoflawof

whichreferenceshallbemadeshortly,asalsothejudgmentscited.

20.Thepointfordeterminationisasmentionedabove,astowhetherfor

thepurposesofthepresentappeal,valuationofthesubjectmatterofthesuit

orthevaluationonwhichthecourtfeehasbeendetermined,shouldgovern?

21.Thereisnodisputethattheplaintiffshadvaluedthesubjectmatter

ofthesuitatRs.66,66,600/-.

22.ThereisalsonodisputethatforthepurposesofCourtfee,theCourt

feehasbeenpaidonhalfofthesubjectmatterofthevaluation,i.e.,

Rs.33,33,300/-.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

12

23.Theissuebeforeusis,nottodeterminethevaluationofthesuitor

forthepurposesofcourtfee,buttakingthevaluationasmentionedinthe

plaint,onwhichthereisnodisputeraisedinthisappealatthisstage,wehave

toconsiderwhichonei.e.,valuationofthesubjectmatterorthevaluationfor

courtfee,shallbetakenforthepurposesofthepecuniaryjurisdictionto

maintaintheappealbeforetheHighCourtorbeforethelearnedCourtof

DistrictJudge.

24.Atthisstage,wemayreproduceSection50oftheA.P.CourtFees

andSuitValuationAct,1956asunder:

“50.Suitsnototherwiseprovidedfor-(1)Ifnospecificprovisionis

madeinthisActorinanyotherlawregardingthevalueofanysuitforthe

purposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionofCourts,valueforthatpurposeand

valueforthepurposeofcomputingthefeepayableunderthisActshallbethe

same.

(2)InasuitwherefeeispayableunderthisActatafixedrate,thevalue

forthepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionofCourtsshallbethemarket

valueofthemovablepropertyorthree-fourthsofthemarketvalueofthe

immovablepropertyor,whereitisnotpossibletoestimateitatamoneyvalue

theamountstatedintheplaint.”

25.Section17oftheA.P.CivilCourtsAct,1972providesasunder:

“17.AppealsfromthedecreesandOrdersofcourtsinthedistricts-(1)

Anappealshall,whenitisallowedbylaw,liefromanydecreeororderina

civilsuitorproceeding–

(i)oftheDistrictCourt,totheHighCourt

(ii)of*[thecourtofSeniorCivilJudge],-

(a)totheDistrictCourt,whentheamountorvalueofthesubjectmatter

ofthesuitorproceedingis[notmorethanrupeesfiftylakhs]];

(b)totheHighCourt,inothercases;and

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

13

(iii)of*[theCourtofJuniorCivilJudge],totheDistrictCourt.

(2)TheDistrictJudgemay,subjecttotheordersoftheHighCourt,

transferfordisposalanyappealfromthedecreeororderofa*[CourtofJunior

CivilJudge]preferredintheDistrictCourt,toany*[CourtofSeniorCivil

Judge]withinthedistrict.

(3)Wherea*[CourtofSeniorCivilJudge]isestablishedinanydistrict

ataplaceremotefromtheseatoftheDistrictCourt,theHighCourt,may,with

theprevioussanctionoftheGovernment,directthatanappealfromthedecree

ororderofany*[CourtofJuniorCivilJudge]withinthelocallimitsofthe

jurisdictionofsuch*[CourtofSeniorCivilJudge]shallbepreferredinthesaid

*[CourtofSeniorCivilJudge];

ProvidedthattheDistrictJudgemay,fromtimetotime,transfertohis

ownCourt,anyappealsopreferred,anddisposeitofhimself.”

26.Wenowconsiderthejudgmentscited,tofindoutmainlythelawon

thesubjectaslaiddownandthat,whetherthesubmissionofthelearned

counselfortheappellantthatthejudgmentbytheFullBenchdoesnotholdthe

field,inviewofthesubsequentjudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtinDev

BratSharma(supra)hasanysubstance.Hesubmittedthattheverybasisof

thejudgmentoftheFullBenchhasbeentakenawayandsothelawasinthe

caseofGunnaVenkataratnam(supra)standsrevivedwhichshouldbe

followedorinsuchasituationthisbenchshouldreferthemattertoaLarger

BenchortoaBenchofequalstrengthasthebenchwhichdecidedKalla

Yadagiri(FB)(supra).

27.Westatethatifweareoftheviewontheconsiderationtobemade

thatthelaterpronouncementoftheHon’bleApexCourtinDevBratSharma

(supra)doesnotaffecttheFullBenchjudgment,thencertainlyboundbythe

judicialdisciplineanddecorum,wehavetofollowthejudgmentbytheFull

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

14

BenchinKallaYadagiri(supra).Further,ifwefindthattheFullBench

judgmenthasbeenoverruledbyorinviewofthelawlaiddownin,DevBrat

Sharma(supra)bytheHon’bleApexCourt,thencertainlywehavetofollow

thejudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtorthenwemaypasstheordertoplace

thepresentmatterbeforeaBenchofthesamestrengthasinKallaYadagiri

(FB)(supra).

GunnaVenkataratnamv.GunnaKesavaRao:

28.InGunnaVenkataratnam(supra),thesuitbeforethetrialCourt

wasvaluedatRs.18,000/-andthecourtfeewaspaidatRs.13,500/-i.e.,3/4

th

ofthevalueofthepropertyunderSection24oftheA.P.CourtFeesAct,1956.

Forthepurposeofjurisdiction,thesuitwasvaluedatthesameamountof

Rs.13,500/-,inviewoftheprovisionsofSection50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFees

Act.Thesuitwasdecreed,thedefendantsthereinfiledtheappealshowingthe

valueoftheappealasRs.18,000/-bypayingthecourtfeeonlyonasumof

Rs.13,500/-.TheRegistryraisedtheobjection.Theobjectionwasthatthe

valueoftheappealwasshownasRs.13,500/-andnotRs.18,000/-andthe

appealshouldbepresentedbeforetheDistrictCourt.TheRegistryreliedupon

Section50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFeesActwhichdealswiththevalueforthe

purposeofjurisdiction.ThelearnedsingleJudgeconsideredtheprovisionsof

Section50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFeesActandSection17oftheA.P.CivilCourts

Act,1972.ItwasobservedthatifSection17oftheA.P.CivilCourtsActwas

appliedthevalueofthesubjectmatterbeingaboveRs.15,000/-theappeal

wouldlietotheHighCourt.IfSection50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFeesandSuits

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

15

ValuationAct1956wastobeappliedandthevalueoftheappealwastakenas

Rs.13,500/-,theappealfromtheSub-CourtwouldlietotheDistrictCourt.The

questionthereforeposedforconsiderationwas,astowhichparticularstatute

hadtobefollowed.ThelearnedsingleJudgeheldthatinviewofthelanguage

ofSection50(1),whichclearlystatedthattheprovisionsofthatsectionwere

applicableunlesstherewasanyotherspecificprovisionintheA.P.CourtFees

andSuitsValuationActoranyotherlawregardingvaluationofthesuitforthe

purposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionofthecourts,theprovisionsinSection

17(1)oftheA.P.CivilCourtsAct,constitutedaspecialorspecificprovision

(withinthemeaningofSection50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFeesAct),inasmuchas

underthesaidprovisionthevalueofthesubjectmatteri.e.,theentirevalue

wasrelevantforthepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionandnot3/4

th

ofthe

valueofthesubjectmatterasinSection24oftheA.P.CourtFeesandSuits

ValuationAct.Beingofthatview,thelearnedsingleJudgeheldthatthevalue

oftheappealforthepurposeofjurisdictionwastobetakenasRs.18,000/-and

notRs.13,500/-andheldthattheappealwouldlietotheHighCourtandnotto

theDistrictCourt.

29.InGunnaVenkataratnam(supra)thereforeitwasheldthatfor

thepurposesofthejurisdiction,theentirevalueofthesuitisrelevantandnot

thevalueofthesubjectmatterforthepurposesoftheCourtfee.Section17of

theA.P.CivilCourtsActwasheldasaspecificprovision/lawregardingthevalue

ofthesuitforthepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdiction,tobeaprovision,to

thecontraryunderSection50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFeesActitself.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

16

Sidramappav.Sangappa(DB):

30.InSidramappa(supra),aDivisionBenchofthisCourthad

previouslyconsideredthesamequestiontakingintoaccounttheprovisionsof

Section50oftheA.P.CourtFeesandSuitValuationActandSection17ofthe

A.P.CivilCourtsActandhadheldthatSection50(1)oftheA.P.CourtFeesand

SuitValuationActgovernedthesituation.UnderthatSection,thevalueforthe

purposeofdeterminingjurisdictionshallbethesameasthatforcomputingthe

Courtfee.Inthesaidcase,thevalueforthepurposesofcourtfeewas

computedon3/4

th

valueofthelandsasenjoinedbySection29oftheAct.It

washeldthatthesameshallbethevalueforthepurposesofjurisdiction.The

DivisionBenchhadheldthatinacasegovernedbysection50(1)oftheA.P.

CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,thevalueofthesubjectmatterfor

determiningthejurisdictionshallbethesameandnotdifferentfromthevalue

ofthesubjectmatterforcomputingthecourtfee.Thevalueofthesubject

matterfordeterminingthejurisdictionhadtobeassessedaccordingtothe

prescribedmodeoftheprovisionsintheA.P.CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct

andanydeparturetherefromwasnotpermittedinlaw.Thevaluehadtobe

computedexactlyinthemannerprescribed.

31.Paragraph-15ofjudgmentinSidramappa(supra)readsasunder:

“15.Section50(1)isexplicitinitstermsanddoesnotbearevenavague

referencetothemarketvalueatallnotevenasinsection50(2).Itisdifficultto

concludethatpecuniaryjurisdictionshouldneverthelessbedeterminedonlyon

thefullmarketvalueoftheproperty.Thispointwasconsideredbythiscourt

inVenkataSubbammav.Ramaseshamma,1959-2AndhWR238where

Munikannaiah,J.didnotagreewiththepropositionthat,undertheprovisions

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

17

ofSection50(f)oftheAct,thevalueofthesuitforthepurposeofcomputing

thecourt-feepayableundertheActandthatfordeterminingthejurisdictionin

effectcouldatallbedifferent.Weagreewiththatreasoningandholdthatina

casegovernedbyS.50(1)thevalueofthesubjectmatterfordeterminingthe

jurisdictionshallbethesameandnotdifferentfromthevalueofthesubject-

matterforcomputingthecourt-fee.Whenitisclearthatthevalueofthe

subject-matterfordeterminingthejurisdictionhastobeassessedaccordingto

theprescribedmodeoftheprovisionsintheSuitsValuationAct,anydeparture

therefromcannotbepermittedinlaw.Thevaluehastobecomputedexactlyin

themannerprescribed.Judgedthus,thecontentionthattheentiremarketvalue

mustbetakenfordeterminingthejurisdictioncannotbeupheld.Wetherefore

upholdtheorderoftheDistrictMunsifanddismisstherevisionpetitionwith

costs.”

32.So,inSidramappa(supra)itwasheldbytheDivisionBenchthat

thevalueofthesubjectmatterfordeterminingthejurisdictionshallbethe

sameasthevalueofthesubjectmatterforcomputingthecourtfee.

33.ThejudgmentinSidramappa(supra)wasnottakennoteofin

GunnaVenkataratnam(supra).Apparently,Sidramappa(supra)ofthe

DivisionBenchwasthelaw,onthesubjectbytheDivisionBenchanda

contraryviewwastakenbythelearnedsingleJudgeinGunna

Venkataratnam(supra)withoutnoticingtheDivisionBenchjudgment.

KallaYadagiriv.KothaBalReddy:

34.InKallaYadagiri(FB)(supra)thequestionatissuewas;whether

theprovisionsoftheA.P.CivilCourtsAct,1972dealtwiththevaluationofsuits

determiningpecuniaryjurisdictionoverridingtheprovisionscontainedintheA.P.

CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

18

35.InKallaYadagiri(supra)theFullBenchheldthatSection16ofthe

A.P.CivilCourtsAct,1972isnotconcernedwiththemodeofvaluationofthe

suitsandthevaluationofthesuitsfordeterminingthejurisdictionisoutsidethe

purviewoftheA.P.CivilCourtActandthatwasequallyapplicabletothe

appealsalso,referringtoSection17ofthesaidAct.TheFullBenchheldthat

Section50withitssub-sections(1)and(2)oftheA.P.CourtFeesandSuits

ValuationAct,1956istheonlyprovisiondealingwiththevalueofanysuitfor

thepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionofthecourts,andlikewise,thevalue

oftheappealforthepurposeofjurisdictionwasgovernedbyonlyA.P.Court

FeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956.TheFullBenchupheldtheviewtakenby

theDivisionBenchinSidramappa(supra)andoverruledtheviewtakenbythe

learnedsingleJudgeinGunnaVenkataratnam(supra).

36.Paragraph-9oftheKallaYadagiri(FB)(supra)readsasunder:

“9.Inviewofwhatisstatedsupra,weholdthatSection16ofthe

A.P.CivilCourtsAct,1972isnotconcernedwiththemodeofvaluationofthe

suitsandthevaluationofthesuitsfordeterminingthejurisdictionisoutsidethe

purviewofthesaidAct.Thisisequallyapplicabletotheappealsalso,referred

toinSection17oftheaboveAct.Section50withitssub-sections(1)and(2)of

theA.P.CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956istheonlyprovisiondealing

withthevalueofanysuitforthepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionofthe

courts.Likewise,thevalueoftheappealforthepurposeofjurisdictionis

governedbyonlySection49ofA.P.Court-feesandSuitsValuationAct,1956.

Inthecircumstances,weupholdtheviewtakenbytheDivisionBench

inSidramappav.Sangappa(2supra)andoverruletheviewtakenbythe

learnedsingleJudgeinG.Venkaratnamv.G.KesavaRao(1Supra).”

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

19

37.Thus,inKallaYadagiri(supra)theFullBenchheldthatthe

jurisdictionoftheCourt,inthesuitorappeal,istobedeterminedasper

Section50oftheA.P.CourtFeesandSuitValuationAct,andtheA.P.Civil

CourtsActwasnotapplicableforsuchpurposes.InviewofSection50,the

valuationforthepurposeofcourtfeewouldbethevaluationfordetermining

thejurisdictionaswell.

38.InKallaYadagiri(supra),theFullBenchconsideredthejudgment

oftheHon’bleApexCourtinSathappaChettiar(supra).Thereferenceofthe

saidjudgmentwasmadeinparagraph-8andthatpartisreproducedasunder:

“8…….Thereareseveraljudicialprecedentssupportingourviewthatthevalue

ofthereliefforthepurposeofCourtfeesdeterminesthejurisdictionandwe

neednotstatethoseplethoraofprecedentsandsufficeittomentionajudgment

oftheSupremeCourtdirectlyonthepointdealingwithanalogousprovisionin

theSuitsValuationAct,1887,inSathappaChettirarv.RamanathanChettiarr,

(3)AIR1958SC245.Itisapttoextracttherelevantportionofthesaid

judgment:

“TherecanbelittledoubtthattheeffectoftheprovisionsofSection8is

tomakethevalueforthepurposeofjurisdictiondependentuponthevalueas

determinableforcomputationofCourt-feesandthatisnaturalenough.The

computationofCourt-feesinsuitsfallingunderSection7(iv)oftheAct

dependsuponthevaluationthattheplaintiffmakesinrespectofhisclaim.

Oncetheplaintiffexerciseshisoptionandvalueshisclaimforthepurposeof

Courtfees,thatdeterminesthevalueforjurisdiction.ThevalueforCourt-

feesandthevalueforjurisdictionmustnodoubtbethesameinsuchcases;

butitisthevalueoftheCourt-feesstatedbytheplaintiffthatisofprimary

importance.Itisfromthisvaluethatthevalueforjurisdictionmustbe

determined.Theresultisthatitistheamountatwhichtheplaintiffhas

valuedthereliefsoughtforthepurposesofCourt-feesthatdeterminesthe

valueforjurisdictioninthesuitandnotviceversa.”

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

20

S.RM.AR.S.SP.SathappaChettiarv.S.RM.AR.RM.

RamanathanChettiar:

39.InSathappaChettiar(supra)theplaintiff’ssuitforpartitionforhis

sharewasdecreed.TheappealwasfiledintheHighCourt.Pendingthe

appeal,thedisputewassettledamicablybetweenthepartiesinrespectofthe

propertiestheninsuit.TheappellantbeforetheHon’bleApexCourt,the

plaintiff,raisedthecontentionthatthecompromisetransactionsdidnotbind

himandsotheclaimforrecoveryofhisshareignoringthetransactionbetween

hisfatherandtherespondentintheappealwasmade.Itwasheldthatthe

saidOrder/directionwaserroneousinlaw.ItwasheldthatSection7(iv)(b)of

CourtFeesAct,1870dealtwithsuitstoenforcetherighttoshareinthe

propertyonthegroundthatitisjointfamilypropertyandtheamountoffees

payableonplaintsinsuchsuitsprovided“accordingtotheamountatwhichthe

reliefsoughtisvaluedintheplaintormemorandumofappeal”.TheHon’ble

ApexCourtheldthatinallsuitsfallingunderSection7(iv)theplaintiffshall

statetheamountatwhichthevalueofthereliefassought.Iftheschemelaid

downforthecomputationoffeespayableinsuitscoveredbytheseveralsub-

sectionsofSection7wasconsidered,itwouldbeclearthat,inrespectofsuits

fallingundersub-section(iv),adeparturehadbeenmadeandlibertyhadbeen

giventotheplaintifftovaluehisclaimforthepurposesofcourtfees.The

theoreticalbasisofthesaidprovisionappearedtobethatincasesinwhichthe

plaintiffwasgiventheoptiontovaluehisclaim,itwasreallydifficulttovalue

theclaimwithanyprecisionordefiniteness.Thebasisoftheclaimwasthatthe

propertyinrespectofwhichasharewasclaimedwasjointfamilyproperty.It

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

21

wasthepropertyinwhichtheplaintiffhadanundividedshare.Theconversion

oftheplaintiff'sallegedundividedshareinthejointfamilypropertyintoa

separatesharecouldnotbeeasilyvaluedintermsofrupeeswithanyprecision

ordefiniteness.TheHon’bleApexCourtobservedthatthelegislaturehadleftit

totheoptionoftheplaintifftovaluehisclaimforthepaymentofcourtfees.So,

insuitsfallingunderSection7(iv)(b)theamountasstatedbytheplaintiffas

thevalueofhisclaimforpartitionhadordinarilytobeacceptedbythecourtin

computingthecourtfeespayableinrespectofthesaidrelief.

40.Thereafter,theHon’bleApexCourtfurtherconsideredastowhat

wouldbethevalueforthepurposeofjurisdictioninsuchsuits.TheHon’ble

ApexCourtobservedthatthequestionhadtobedecidedbyreadingSection

7(iv)oftheActalongwithSection8oftheSuitsValuationAct.Section8ofthe

SuitValuationActprovidedthat,whereinanysuitsotherthanthosereferredto

inCourtFeesActSection7,paras5,6and9andpara10clause(d),courtfees

arepayableadvaloremundertheAct,thevaluedeterminableforthe

computationofcourtfeesandthevalueforthepurposesofjurisdictionshallbe

thesame.Inotherwords,itwasobservedthatsofarassuitsfallingunder

Section7,sub-section(iv)oftheActwereconcerned,Section8oftheSuits

ValuationActprovidedthatthevalueasdeterminableforthecomputationof

courtfeesandthevalueforthepurposesofjurisdictionshallbethesame.The

Hon’bleApexCourtobservedandheldthatoncetheplaintiffexercisedhis

optionandvaluedhisclaimforthepurposeofcourtfees,thatdeterminedthe

valueforjurisdiction.Thevalueforcourtfeesandthevalueforjurisdiction

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

22

mustnodoubtbethesameinsuchcases;butitwasthevalueforcourtfees

statedbytheplaintiffthatwasofprimaryimportance.Itwasfromthisvalue

thatthevalueforjurisdictionmustbedetermined.TheHon’bleApexCourt

concludedthatitwastheamountatwhichtheplaintiffhadvaluedtherelief

soughtforthepurposesofcourtfeesthatdeterminedthevalueforjurisdiction

inthesuitandnotviceversa.

41.Paragraph-15ofSathappaChettiar(supra)readsasunder:

“15.Whatwouldbethevalueforthepurposeofjurisdictioninsuch

suitsisanotherquestionwhichoftenarisesfordecision.Thisquestionhastobe

decidedbyreadingSection7(iv)oftheActalongwithSection8oftheSuits

ValuationAct.Thislattersectionprovidesthat,whereinanysuitsotherthan

thosereferredtoinCourtFeesActSection7,paras5,6and9andpara10

clause(d),courtfeesarepayableadvaloremundertheAct,thevalue

determinableforthecomputationofcourtfeesandthevalueforthepurposesof

jurisdictionshallbethesame.Inotherwords,sofarassuitsfallingunder

Section7,sub-section(iv)oftheActareconcerned,Section8oftheSuits

ValuationActprovidesthatthevalueasdeterminableforthecomputationof

courtfeesandthevalueforthepurposesofjurisdictionshallbethesame.There

canbelittledoubtthattheeffectoftheprovisionsofSection8istomakethe

valueforthepurposeofjurisdictiondependentuponthevalueasdeterminable

forcomputationofcourtfeesandthatisnaturalenough.Thecomputationof

courtfeesinsuitsfallingunderSection7(iv)oftheActdependsuponthe

valuationthattheplaintiffmakesinrespectofhisclaim.Oncetheplaintiff

exerciseshisoptionandvalueshisclaimforthepurposeofcourtfees,that

determinesthevalueforjurisdiction.Thevalueforcourtfeesandthevaluefor

jurisdictionmustnodoubtbethesameinsuchcases;butitisthevalueforcourt

feesstatedbytheplaintiffthatisofprimaryimportance.Itisfromthisvalue

thatthevalueforjurisdictionmustbedetermined.Theresultisthatitisthe

amountatwhichtheplaintiffhasvaluedthereliefsoughtforthepurposesof

courtfeesthatdeterminesthevalueforjurisdictioninthesuitandnotviceversa.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

23

Incidentallywemaypointoutthataccordingtotheappellantitwasreallynot

necessaryinthepresentcasetomentionRs15,00,000asthevaluationforthe

purposesofjurisdictionsinceonplaintsfiledontheOriginalSideofthe

MadrasHighCourtpriorto1953therewasnoneedtomakeanyjurisdictional

valuation.”

StateofPunjabv.DevBratSharma:

42.InDevBratSharma(supra),therespondentthereinDevBrat

SharmainstitutedasuitforrecoveryofRs.20lakhasdamagesallegedly

sufferedbyhimonaccountofdenyingthestatusoffreedomfighterbythe

defendantsandalsoforthelossofreputationonaccountofnon-issuanceof

certificateoffreedomfighteralongwithinterest.Thedefendantinthe

suit/appellantbeforetheHon’bleApexCourtpreferredanapplicationunder

Order7Rule11(c)readwithSection151CPConthegroundofnon-payment

ofrequisitecourtfeeandthesamewasregisteredasI.A.No.00001of2016.

Theapplicationwasallowedwithadirectiontotherespondenttofilethecourt

feesontheamountofRs.20lakhs.Therevisionfiledbytherespondentwas

allowedbytheHighCourtandthejudgmentoftheHighCourtwasunder

challengebeforetheHon’bleApexCourt.

43.InDevBratSharma(supra),theHon’bleApexCourt,sofarasthe

judgmentinSanthappaChettiar(supra)isconcerned,heldthatthe

valuationforthepurposeofjurisdictionandthereliefhastobethesamein

moneysuitsfallingundercategory7(i).Itwasonlyinthecategoryofsuits

coveredundersub-section(iv)ofSection7thattherewouldbetwodifferent

valuationsforthepurposeofjurisdictionandforreliefsought.Itwasobserved

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

24

thatinSanthappaChettiar(supra)thereliefclaimedwasforpartitionof

jointfamilypropertiesandforaccountsinrespectofjointfamilyassets

managedbytherespondents.InSanthappaChettiar(supra)thecategoryof

thesuitwascoveredbySection7(iv)oftheAct.InDevBratSharma(supra)

thecategoryofthesuitwasmoneysuitinSection7(i)oftheAct.So,Dev

BratSharma(supra)wasnotacaseofasuitfallingunderSection7(iv)of

theAct.TheHon’bleApexCourtclarifiedinDevBratSharma(supra)that,it

wasnotlaiddowninteraliainSanthappaChettiar(supra)casethat,forthe

purposeofsuitcoveredunderclausesotherthanSection7(iv)oftheAct,there

wouldbeseparatevaluationforthepurposeofcourtfeeandjurisdiction.So,

thiswasclarifiedthatSanthappaChettiar(supra)waswithrespecttothe

suitsfallingunderSection7(iv)andnottothesuitfallingoutsidetheSection7

(iv).TheHon’bleApexCourtinDevBratSharma(supra)observedspecifically

thatinthesuitofthenatureasinDevBratSharma(supra)i.e.,forrecovery

ofmoneysuitmentionedinSection7(i),theplaintiffhadnotgivenaseparate

valuationforthereliefsoughtastheplaintiffhadnolibertyandrighttogive

differentvaluationthanwhatwasbeingactuallyclaimed.Inthesaidcasein

theplaint,paragraph-11,theplaintiffhadclearlystatedthatthevaluationwas

thesameforthecourtfeesandthejurisdiction.

44.Para-30ofDevBratSharma(supra)readsasunder:

“30.Thevaluationforthepurposesofjurisdictionandreliefhastobe

thesameinthemoneysuitsfallingunderCategory7(i).Itwasonlyin

categoryofsuitscoveredbyclause(iv)ofSection7thattherecouldbetwo

differentvaluationsforthepurposesofjurisdictionandforreliefsought.”

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

25

45.WestatethatinKallaYadagiri(supra)theprovisionsofA.P.Civil

CourtsAct,1972andtheA.P.CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956were

underconsideration.InSathappaChettiar(supra),oftheHon’bleApex

CourttheprovisionsofCourtFeesAct1870andtheSuitsValuationAct1887

wereunderconsideration.So,primafacie,differentActswereunder

considerationinKallaYadagiri(supra)andinSathappaChettiar(supra).

TheFullBenchfortheviewithastakenreferredtoSathappaChettiar(supra)

clearlyobservingthatonthepointof‘analoguesprovisions’oftheSuits

ValuationAct1887.

46.So,ontheaforesaidconsideration,weareoftheviewthat,

a)InDevBratSharma(supra)thesuitwasofthenaturefalling

underSection7(i)oftheCourtFeesAct,1870.Itwasnotfalling

underSection7(iv)oftheCourtFeesAct1870.

b)SanthappaChettiar(supra)isacasefallingunderSection7(iv)

oftheCourtFeesAct1870.

c)InasuitfallingunderSection7(iv)oftheCourtFeesAct1870,the

plaintiffhasbeengiventhelibertyandrighttogivedifferent

valuationforthereliefsought,butthatlibertyisnotavailableina

suitfallingoutsidesection7(iv)oftheCourtFeesAct1870.

d)ForasuitunderSection7(iv)oftheCourtFeesAct1870wherethe

plaintiffhasgottherighttogiveseparatevaluationfortherelief

soughtthanthevaluationofthesubjectmatter,therecouldbetwo

separatevaluationsforthepurposeofjurisdictionandfortherelief

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

26

sought.Insuchacase,SanthappaChettiar(supra)shallapply

andthevaluationforthepurposeofthereliefwhichisalsoforthe

purposeofcourtfeeshallbetaken,asthevaluationforthe

jurisdictionaswellinviewofSection8oftheSuitsValuationAct

1887.

e)But,theprincipleaslaiddowninSanthappaChettiar(supra)

wouldnotapplywithrespecttoasuitfallingoutsideSection7(iv)

i.e.,fallinginSection7(i),inwhichcasetheplaintiffhasgotno

libertytogiveseparatevaluation,inviewofDevBratSharma

(supra).

f)DevBratSharma(supra)clarifiesthatthejudgmentin

SanthappaChettiar(supra)totheaboveextent,anditdoesnot

laydownthatinthecasesofsuitfallingunderSection7(iv)there

cannotbedifferentvaluation,oneforthepurposeofjurisdiction

andtheotherforthepurposeofcourtfeenorthatinacasefalling

underSection7(iv)thevaluationforthepurposeofjurisdiction

wouldnotbethesameasthevaluationforthepurposeofthecourt

fee.

47.So,inourview,thejudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtinthecase

ofSanthappaChettiar(supra)iswithrespecttoasuitfallingunderSection7

(iv)oftheCourtFeeAct1870andtheSuitsValuationAct1887andthe

judgmentinthecaseofDevBratSharma(supra)laysdownthelawwith

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

27

respecttothesuitsfallingunderSection7(i),inotherwordsthesuitfalling

outsideSection7(iv)andsonotcoveredbySanthappaChettiar(supra).

48.Thepresentisacasefordeclarationoftitleandforconsequential

reliefofinjunction.IntheStateofAndhraPradeshtheActsapplicableare(i)

A.P.CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct1956and(ii)TheA.P.CivilCourtsAct

1972.

49.TheFullBenchinKallaYadagiri(supra)isanauthorityonthepoint

involvedonconsiderationoftheprovisionsoftheActsasapplicabletotheState

ofAndhraPradesh.

50.Theexpression‘AnySuit’inSection50oftheA.P.CourtFeesand

SuitsValuationAct,1956shallinclude‘AnySuit’forwhichnospecificprovision

ismadeintheActof1956orinanyotherlawregardingthevalueofanysuit

forthepurposeofdeterminingthejurisdictionofCourts.TheFullBenchhas

heldthatSection17oftheA.P.CivilCourtsAct,1972isnosuchprovision.

Consequently,inthepresentcasegovernedbytheprovisionsofA.P.Civil

CourtsAct,1972andtheA.P.CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956there

appearstobenorelevanceofSection7oftheCourtFeesAct,1870orofthe

SuitsValuationAct1887.Thenatureofthesuit,inthepresentcasefor

valuationofcourtfeeiscoveredunderSection24(b)oftheA.P.CourtFees

andSuitsValuationAct,1956,whichrequiresthatwheretheprayerisfor

declarationandforconsequentialinjunctionwithreferencetoanyimmovable

property,feeshallbecomputedonone-halfofthemarketvalueoftheproperty

oronrupeesthreehundred,whicheverishigher.Thevaluationforcourtfeeas

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

28

perSection24(b),beingRs.33,33,300/-thesamewillalsobeforthepurposes

ofthejurisdiction.

51.Thus,considered.Weareoftheviewthatthesubmissionsadvanced

bythelearnedcounselfortheappellantthatinviewofthejudgmentinDev

BratSharma(supra),clarifyingtheHon’bleApexCourtinSathappaChettiar

(supra)andlayingdownthelawasinDevBratSharma(supra)thevery

basisoftheFullBenchjudgmentinKallaYadagiri(supra)hasbeentaken

awayandconsequently,inviewofDevBratSharma(supra),thejudgmentof

thelearnedsingleJudgeinGunnaVenkataratnam(supra)shouldbe

followed,ismisconceived.Wearenotinagreementwithsuchasubmission,

forthereasonswehaverecordedaboveandsuchasubmissionisrejected.

52.WeareboundtofollowtheFullBenchjudgmentanddoso,andnot

thelearnedsingleJudge’sjudgmentaswasmuchemphasizedbeforeustobe

followedbythelearnedcounselfortheappellant.

53.Theotherjudgmentsreferredbythelearnedcounselforthe

appellantalongwiththecompilationofcitations,asalsovariousActsonthe

courtfee,suitvaluation,civilcourtsofdifferentstates,deserveno

considerationforthepurposesofthepresentcase,asthoseprovisionsofthe

statuteareapplicableintheotherStatesasalsotheotherrulingswhicharenot

directlyontheprovisionsofthestatuteapplicableintheStateofAndhra

Pradesh.

RNT,J&MRK,J

CMANo.609of2025

29

Conclusion:

54.Thus,considered.Weholdthatthevaluationofthesuitforthe

purposesofthecourtfeei.e.,Rs.33,33,300/-asperpara-VIoftheplaintshall

alsodeterminethejurisdictionoftheCourtinviewofSection50oftheA.P.

CourtFeesandSuitsValuationAct,1956readwithSection17oftheA.P.Civil

CourtsAct,1972inviewofthelawlaiddowninKallaYadagiri(FB)(supra).

Weaccordinglyanswerthepoint/issuefordetermination.

Result:

55.Consequently,thevaluationforthepurposeofjurisdictionbeingless

thanandnotaboveRs.50lakhs,theOfficeObjectionissustained.Theappeal

shouldbefiledbeforetheconcernedlearnedCourtofthePrincipalDistrict

JudgeandisnotmaintainableintheHighCourt.

56.TheOfficeObjectionisupheld.LettheRegistryremittheRecordof

AppealtothelearnedCourtconcernedofthePrincipalDistrictJudge.

Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions,ifany,shallstandclosedin

consequence.

_______________________

RAVINATHTILHARI,J

______________________________

MAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM,J

Date:.03.2026

Dsr

Note:

LRcopytobemarked

B/o

Dsr