KRISHNA PRATAPA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. MADGI POCHAIAH AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Krishna Pratapa Rao And Another
Madgi Pochaiah And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramaswamy, J. -
(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition, the defendants are the petitioners. On Issues 8 and 9 in O.S.No.4 of 1979 on the file of the lower court, they raised a dispute regarding the valuation mentioned in the plaint sad jurisdiction of the lower court, and requested the court to try the same as a preliminary issue in view of Section 11 (4) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1956. The value of the suit has been mentioned in the suit as Rs.500/ - . The lower court found that the value fixed by the plaintiffs is sufficient and that, therefore, the court has jurisdiction. Dissatisfied with the said order, the above CRP has been filed.
(2.) It is contended by sri Venkateswara Rao learned counsel for the petitioners that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is a declaration restraining the defendants from felling gulmohwa trees standing on their patta lands, that the total number of trees standing on that land would be 5055 ; that the petitioners have contracted to sell the trees at the rate of Rs.60/ - per tree/, that if that rate is taken, the total value of the trees would come to above Rs.3,00,000/ - and, therefore, court fees has to be paid over that valuation. It is further contended that the trees are standing on the land which is an immovable property. Therefore, the respondents - plaintiffs have to value the suit at half of the market value of the trees for the purpose of court fee and valuation. The respondents have grossly undervalued the relief in the plaint. As such, the lower court is not justified in holding the plaint valuation of Rs.500/ - as sufficient for the purpose of court fee.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. A. Suryanarayana Murthy learned counsel for the respondents, contended that what was sought for by the plaintiffs was the relief injunction to restrain the defendants from cutting the trees. The value to which they are entitled is as per the sale said to have been made in favour of the predecessors of the defendants by Rani Chinnamma, the Jagirdar and title-holder of the trees, as per the law then existing. But, now the respondents are the owners and that the petitioners have no right to interfere with their right. Therefore, the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs-respondents is proper.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.