pecuniary jurisdiction=From the decree of the trial Court, an appeal lies to the District Court when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding is not more than Rs.5 lakhs. The Registry has, therefore, raised an objection to which the learned counsel for the appellant replied that as the subsequent interest has been added, the value of the appeal has come to Rs.9,76,465/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.= Section 17 of the Act being the substantive provision, which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, the jurisdiction of the Courts has to be determined with reference to the said provision. Section 17(1)(ii)(a) of the Act prescribed the amount or the value of the subject matter of the suit or the proceeding as the criterion for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court and not the value of the appeal, increased on account of addition of interest to the value of the suit. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Office objections are sustained. The Registry is directed to return the appeal to the appellant for being presented before the District Court.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        

CCCA(SR).No.1172 of 2014

06-03-2014

M.Mohan Reddy, S/o N.Guruva Reddy..... Appellant

D.Rajamallu, S/o Odelu and three others......Respondents

Counsel for the appellant: Sri Vanam Vishwanatham

Counsel for the Respondents: ---

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases Referred:
NIL

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        

CCCA(SR).No.1172 of 2014

Date:06.03.2014


ORDER:
        The Office has raised an objection on the maintainability of this appeal
on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The suit was valued at Rs.5 lakhs under Section 17(1)(ii)(a) of the Andhra
Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act').
From the decree of the trial Court, an appeal lies to the District Court when
the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding is not more
than Rs.5 lakhs. The Registry has, therefore, raised an objection to which the
learned counsel for the appellant replied that as the subsequent interest has
been added, the value of the appeal has come to Rs.9,76,465/- which exceeds the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.
At the hearing, Sri Vanam Vishwanatham, the learned counsel for the appellant,
has relied upon Explanation-(3) to Section 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which envisages inclusion of interest awarded
subsequent to the institution of the suit and that the same shall be deemed to
be the subject matter of the appeal.
Section 49 of the said Act deals with payment of Court fees. The said provision
therefore cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining the pecuniary
jurisdiction of an appellate Court.
Section 17 of the Act being the substantive provision, which determines the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, the jurisdiction of the Courts has to be
determined with reference to the said provision.
Section 17(1)(ii)(a) of the Act prescribed the amount or the value of the
subject matter of the suit or the proceeding as the criterion for determining
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court and not the value of the
appeal, increased on account of addition of interest to the value of the suit.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Office objections are sustained. The
Registry is directed to return the appeal to the appellant for being presented
before the District Court.
____________________________  
JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY      
06th March, 2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

SALE OF ASSIGNED LAND OF EX- SERVICE MEN AFTER 10 YEARS, NOT QUESTIONABLE= The lands that are assigned to Ex-servicemen, however, are treated differently. For all practical purposes, such lands are taken away from the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1994, directing that, after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment, the Ex-servicemen shall be entitled to alienate the land assigned to them. In case, ten years have expired from the date of assignment in favour of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner, the respondents cannot object the alienation made by his vendor.

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.