SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(AP) 827

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.CHELAMESWAR, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Kalla Yadagiri – Appellant
Versus
Kotha Bal Reddy – Respondent


B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE question at issue is whether the provisions of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 deal with the valuation of suits determining pecuniary jurisdiction overriding the provisions contained in the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The matter is of practical importance and the reference has been made to the Full Court to resolve the divergence of opinion.

( 2 ) WE may narrate the events leading to the reference. This CRP 4858 of J994 first came up before the learned single Judge. It is directed against the order passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Siddipet in OS No. 72 of 1994 on preliminary objection raised by the defendants in the said suit, who are the petitioners herein. The objection was with regard to jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the subject matter of the suit was shown as Rs. 68,000/- and the relief of declaration and consequential injunction under Section 24 (b) of A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Court Fees Act") was mentioned as Rs. 34,000. 00 being half of the value of the properties involved in the said suit. The contention of the petitioners was that, it is not









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top