WHETHER THE VALUE FOR PECUNIARY JURISDICTION -VS- COURT FEE IS ONE AND THE SAME

AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act
CHAPTER 4 COMPUTATION OF FEE
19. Fee how computed :- The fee payable under this Act shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter VIII and Schedules I and II.
20. Suits for money :- In a suit for money (including a suit for damages, or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed.
21. Suits for immovable property :- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, in a suit relating to immovable property, fee shall be computed on three-fourths of the market value of the property.
22. Suits for maintenance and annuities :- In the suits hereinafter mentioned, fee shall be computed as follows :-
(a) in a suit for maintenance, on the amount claimed to be payable for one year;
(b) in a suit for enhancement or reduction of maintenance, on the amount by which the annual maintenance is sought to be enhanced or reduced;
(c) in a suit for annuities or other sums payable periodically, on five times the amount claimed to be payable for one year: Provided that, where the annuity is payable for less than five years, the fee shall be computed on the aggregate of the sums payable .
23. Suits for movable property :-
(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed-
(a) where the subject-matter has a market value, on such value; or
(b) where the subject-matter has no market value, 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.
(2) (a) In a suit for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one fourth of the amount or of the market value of the property secured by the document where the plaintiffs title to the money or the property secured by the document is denied: Provided that where such denial relates only to a portion of the amount or property, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of such portion of the amount or on one-fourth of the market value of such portion of the property.
(b) In a suit for possession of documents of title, where the plaintiffs title to the money or the property secured by the document is not denied, fee 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.
24. Suits for declaration :-
In a suit for a declaration with or without consequential relief, not falling under section 25 –
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three fourths of the market value of the immovable property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.
(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher;
(c) where the prayer relates to the plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other things and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee 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;
(d) in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee 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.


26. Suits for injunction :-
In a suit for injunction-
(a) where the relief sought relates to any immovable property, and where the plaintiffs title to the property is denied, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees two hundred, whichever is higher;
(b) where the relief sought relates to the plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee 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;
(c) in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee 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.



AP Civil Courts Act

Section 5 Jurisdiction of the Judges of the City Civil Courts in original suits and proceedings
(1) The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Judge and an Additional Chief Judge shall, subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the other provisions of the Act, extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature including land acquisition original petitions, the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds rupees ten lakhs. 
(2) The pecuniary jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge shall extend to all like suits and proceedings of a Civil nature including land acquisition original petitions not otherwise exempted from his cognizance under any other law for the time being in force, the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds rupees one lakh but does not exceed rupees ten lakhs.
(3) The pecuniary jurisdiction of Junior Civil Judge shall extend to all like suits and proceedings not otherwise exempted from his cognizance under any other law for the time being in force, the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed rupees one lakh.

Section 16 Jurisdiction of District Judge, Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judge in original suits and other proceedings
(1) The pecuniary jurisdiction or a District Judge, shall subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the other provisions of this Act, extend to all original suits and proceedings of Civil nature including Land Acquisition original petitions, the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds rupees ten lakhs.
(2) The pecuniary jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge shall extend to all like suits and proceedings of a Civil nature including land acquisition original petitions not otherwise exempted from his cognizance under any other law for the time being in force, the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds rupees one lakh but does not exceed rupees ten lakhs.
(3) The pecuniary jurisdiction of Junior Civil Judge shall extend to all like suits and proceedings, not otherwise exempted from his cognizance under any other law for the time being in force, the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed rupees one lakh.


It is generally true that there can be two valuations, one for the purpose of Court fees and another for the purpose of jurisdiction as held in Gunna Venkataratnam v. Gunna Kesava Rao (1988(1) ALT 649).

But the position with regard to a suit for injunction, the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of Court-fees is one and the same in the suit for injunction in view of Section 26(c) and Section 50(1) of the Act, as up held in 1996 [2] ALT 194.


SATHEEDEVI v. PRASANNA & ANR. [2010] INSC 376 (7 May 2010)

  • Sections 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 37, 38, 45 & 48 etc, specifically provide that market value of the property involved in the suit is to be taken as basis for valuation

  • We have considered the respective submissions. Sections 7(1) (2) (3) (3A) (4), 25(a) (b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37(1) (3), 38, 40, 45 and 48 of the Act which have bearing on the issue raised by the appellant, read as under:
  • "7. Determination of market value (1) 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.
  • (2) The market value of agricultural land in suits falling under Section 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be deemed to be ten times the annual gross profits of such land where it is capable of yielding annual profits minus the assessment if any made to the Government.
  • (3) The market value of a building shall in cases where its rental value has been entered in the registers of any local authority, be ten times such rental value and in other cases the actual market value of the building as on the date of the plaint.
  • 6 (3A) The market value of any property other than agricultural land and building falling under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be the value it will fetch on the date of institution of the suit.
  • (4) Where the subject-matter of the suit is only a restricted or fractional interest in a property, the market value of the property shall be deemed to be the value of the restricted or fractional interest and the value of the restricted or fractional interest shall bear the same proportion to the market value of the absolute interest in such property as the net income derived by the owner of the restricted or fractional interest bears to the total net income from the property.
  • 25. Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 26- (a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher;
  • (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher;
  • 27. Suits for injunction.- In a suit for injunction- (a) Where the reliefs sought is with reference to any immovable property, and (i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or (ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher;
  • 29. Suits for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877.- In a suit for possession of immovable property under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act 1 of 7 1877), fee shall be computed on one-third of the market value of the property or on rupees one hundred and fifty, whichever is higher.
  • 30. Suits for possession not otherwise provided for.- In a suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed, on the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher.
  • 37. Partition suits (1) In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff's share.
  • (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Where, in a suit falling under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), a defendant claims partition and separate possession of his share of the property, fee shall be payable on his written statement computed on half the market value of his share or at half the rates specified in sub-section (2), according as such defendant has been excluded from possession or is in joint possession.
  • 38. Suits for joint possession.- In a suit for joint possession of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff's share.
  • 40. 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-- 8 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;
  • if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.
  • (2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property, or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less.
  • Explanation.- A suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section.
  • 45. Suits under the Survey and Boundaries Act.-In a suit under Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, Section 13 of the Travancore Survey and Boundaries Act of 1094, or Section 14 of the Cochin Survey Act, II of 1074, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property affected by the determination of the boundary or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher.
  • 48. Interpleader suits.(1) In an interpleader suit, fee shall be payable on the plaint at the rates specified in Section 50.(2) Where issues are framed as between the claimants, fee shall be payable computed on the amount of the debt or the money or the market value of other property, movable or immovable, which forms the subject-matter of the suit. In levying such fee, credit shall be given for the fee paid on the plaint; and the balance of the fee shall be paid in equal shares by the claimants who claim the debt or the sum of money or the property adversely to each other.(3) 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 other property to which the suit relates."
9
  • 9. Section 7 (iv), (iv-A) (as inserted by Madras Act of 1922) and (v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (for short, `the Court-fees Act'), which have been considered in various judgments of Madras High Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents reads as under:- "7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:- "xxx xxx xxx (iv) In suits- for movable property of no market-value.-(a) for moveable property where the subject-matter has no market-value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title, to enforce a right to share in joint family property.-(b) to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.-(c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, for an injunction.-(d) to obtain an injunction, for easements.-(e) for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and for accounts.-(f) for accounts- according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal;
  • In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought (iv-A) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document securing money or other property having such value, the valuation should be according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit and such value shall be if the whole decree is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed, and if a portion of the decree is sought 1 to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.
  • (added by Madras Act of 1922) for possession of land, houses and gardens.- (v) In suits for the possession of land, houses, and gardens - according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be- where the subject-matter is land, and- (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue;and such revenue is permanently settled - ten times the revenue so payable;(b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid;and such revenue is settled, but not permanently - five times the revenue so payable;(c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint - fifteen times such net profits;but where no such net profits have arisen therefrom - the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood;(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above-mentioned - the market-value of the land:"


  • In view of our analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, it must be held that the judgments of the Division Bench of Madras High Court and of the learned Single Judges in Venkata Narasimha Raju v. Chandrayya (supra), Navaraja v. Kaliappa Gounder (supra), Arunachalathammal v.Sudalaimuthu Pillai (supra) and Andalammal v. B. Kanniah (supra) as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Allam Venkateswara Reddy v. Golla Venkatanarayana (supra) lay down correct law.
  • 1995 (1) CTC 521, (1995) IIMLJ 357                                                                                         In my view, the said principle has no application to the fact situation on hand and the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an error in applying the ratio of those decisions to the case on hand. Obviously such a mistake has been committed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the assumption that half of the market value of the property as originally given namely Rs. 12,500/- on which Court - fee has been paid would be decisive of the question of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and that therefore the Sub-Court which can entertain only suits in excess of the claims o more than Rs. 15,000/- of value could not entertain the suit as such. The plaint averments would go to show hat Court-fee computed on one-half of the market value of the property namely Rs. 12.500/- came to be paid in this case on the basis of the valuation given before the Court below that the market value of the property was Rs. 2,000/- for purpose of an under Section 25(b) of the Tamilnadu court-fees and suits Valuation Act. 1955. If that be the factual position and there can be no serious controversy over the said factual position, having regard to Section 53(2) of the Act the market value of the property given only shall be the basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and not the value adopted for the purpose of payment of Court-fee by virtue o specific mandate contained Section 25(b) of the Act. In view of the above, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have seen that for purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in respect of the plaint filed in this suit, it is the market value of the property as given namely Rs. 25.000/- that should be the guiding factor or the basis. Thus viewed, the suit filed will be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Thiruvallur. The conclusion arrived at is contrary to law and cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, he order of the Court below is set aside and the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to restore proceedings to his file and dispose of I.A. No. 702 of 1994 on merits, and in accordance with law before proceeding with the matter further.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.