POLAMRASETTI MANIKYAM Vs. TEEGALA VENKATA RAMAYYA
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
February 19,2014
Polamrasetti Manikyam
Appellant
VERSUS
Teegala Venkata Ramayya
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ARUNACHALATHAMMAL V. SUDALAIMUTHU PILLAI [REFERRED TO]VENKATA NARASIMHA RAJU V. CHAANDRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
KOLACHALA KUTUMBA SASTRI V. LAKKARAJU BALA TRIPURA SUNDARAMMA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SATHEEDEVI VS. PRASANNA [REFERRED TO]
ALLAM VENKATESWARA REDDY VS. GOLLA VENKATANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMINAGAR HOUSING WELFARE ASSOCIATION HYDERABAD VS. SYED SAMI ALIAS SYED SAMIUDDIN [OVERRULED]
APPIKUNJU MEERASAYU VS. MEERAN PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
UMA ANTHERJANAM VS. GOVINDARU NAMBOODIRIPAD [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN DAMODARAN VS. PADMANABHAN PARVATHY [REFERRED TO]
P K VASUDEVA RAO VS. K C HARI MENON [REFERRED TO]
PACHAYAMMAL VS. DWARASWAMY PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
IN RE SINGARAM VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NADE ALI MIRZA AND ORS. VS. KHALIDA MOHAMMED SALIM DAWAWALA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-10-42] [REFERRED TO]SUBHASH CHAND ARORA VS. RAMESH CHAND ARORA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-111] [REFERRED TO]
D.V. SHANTHAMMA VS. N.R. RAMESHBABU [LAWS(KAR)-2019-1-287] [REFERRED TO]
BAGADHI VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY VS. ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED COMPANY [LAWS(APH)-2020-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)We are, in this case, concerned with the interpretation of Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "the Court Fees Act") as to whether it authorizes the valuation of the suit on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed or to be valued on the basis of the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction.
(3.)Learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the impugned judgment placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Kolachala Kutumba Sastri v. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma & Ors., 1939 AIR(Mad) 462, and the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association v. Syed Sami @ Syed Samiuddin & Ors., 2010 5 ALT 96, held that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed, Court Fee has to be determined on the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint and not the value shown in the registered sale deed, the legality of which is under challenge in these appeals.
(2.)We are, in this case, concerned with the interpretation of Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "the Court Fees Act") as to whether it authorizes the valuation of the suit on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed or to be valued on the basis of the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction.
(3.)Learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the impugned judgment placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Kolachala Kutumba Sastri v. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma & Ors., 1939 AIR(Mad) 462, and the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association v. Syed Sami @ Syed Samiuddin & Ors., 2010 5 ALT 96, held that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed, Court Fee has to be determined on the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint and not the value shown in the registered sale deed, the legality of which is under challenge in these appeals.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.