Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Andugulapati Narasimha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Abbaraju Chenchamma - Respondent
Decided On : 06-23-61
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 7 (V) (B) - VALUATION OF SUIT LAND - LAND FORMING PART OF AN ESTATE PAYING ANNUAL REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT - COURT FEES PAYABLE ON BASIS OF REVENUE ASSESSMENT - NO SEPARATE VALUATION FOR RELIEF OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs brought a suit for possession of land, valued the suit under section 7, clause (v) (b) of the Court Fees Act, and paid ten times the amount of revenue payable thereon. Defendants objected to the valuation, claiming that the land should be valued on the basis of its market value as a house site. The trial court appointed a Commissioner to value the property, who reported that the land was worth Rs. 300 per cent. The court directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and pay court fees on the basis of this valuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the land in question satisfied the requirements of section 7 (v) (b) of the Court Fees Act, as it was part of an estate paying annual revenue to the Government and was separately assessed in the accounts. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not required to pay separate court fees for the relief of demolition of structures, as this was incidental to the relief of possession and did not give the plaintiffs any added benefit.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question satisfied the requirements of section 7 (v) (b) of the Court Fees Act? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were required to pay separate court fees for the relief of demolition of structures?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the land in question satisfied the requirements of section 7 (v) (b) of the Court Fees Act, as it was part of an estate paying annual revenue to the Government and was separately assessed in the accounts. The court relied on the definition of "estate" in the Act, which includes any land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement with Government or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs were not required to pay separate court fees for the relief of demolition of structures, as this was incidental to the relief of possession and did not give the plaintiffs any added benefit. The court relied on the decision in Narayanaswamy Kone v. Inaganti Gopayamma, wherein it was held that in a suit for recovery of a vacant site, after removal of the structures thereon by the plaintiff, the court-fee payable is on the value of the vacant site and does not take in the value of the buildings that were put upon it.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order directing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and pay court fees on the basis of the Commissioner's valuation.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-petitioners herein brought the aforesaid suit for possession of ac. 6-68 cents of sen land, which has been given a full demarcation number 478/2 in the revenue accounts and which has been assessed to a revenue of Rs. 16-11-0 they valued the suit under section 7, clause (v) (b) and paid ten times the amount of revenue payable thereon, namely, Rs 166-14-0 They also valued the mesne profits due for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53, estimating the same at Rs. 1,670. per each year.
( 3 ) AN objection was taken to the valuation by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit land was not being cultivated, that it was gradually converted into house sites, and that the Court-fees ought to have been paid on the market value of the same, which, according to defendants, was worth Rs. 1,33,600, excluding the superstructures on the date of the suit, calculated at Rs. 200 per cent.
( 4 ) THE Court below dealt with the question of Court-fee as a preliminary issue, appointed a Commissioner to value the suit property, and the Commissioner so appointed made a local inspection, and after necessary investigation, reported that on the date of his report the suit property was worth Rs. 300 a cent. Based on this report, the learned Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by altering the valuation and pay Court-fee on the basis of such amendment, adopting rs. 300 as the value for each cent of the land. Against this judgment and order of the Court below, a revision petition was preferred to this Court in C. R. P. No 278 of 1956 which was dismissed. There was a reference in the order on that c. R. P that although the plaintiff did not ask for recovery of the house, be had also not asked for the demolition of the house and delivery of the land alone. Taking the clue from this observation of the learned Judge who dismissed the C. R. P. , the plaintiffs applied to the Court below for an amendment of the plaint, praying that possession of the land be delivered to them after demolishing the house and superstructures, if any, standing thereon. The learned Subordinate Judge thought it fit to allow the amendment of the plaint; but strangely enough, while holding that the relief of demolition of the superstructures should be valued separately also directed that the land itself should be valued at the rate of Rs. 300 a cent. Hence the revision.
( 5 ) IT must be borne in mind that the relief which a plaintiff chooses to ask in the plaint is his own concern. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have asked for possession seri land It is found that the land in respect of which the suit was brought is registered in the accounts as sari land and a separate demarcation number is given to this land. Further, the Government are collecting the revenue of Rs. 16-11-0 as per the assessment made by the officers concerned in respect of the land. It may thus be seen that the land in question forming the subject-matter of the suit, satisfies the requirements of section 7 (v) (b) of the Court-fees Act, which is in the following words :-"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-matcer is land, and- (a) (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, ten times the revenue so payable : explanation.-The word estate as used in t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
