The short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, O.S.No.56 of 2010.

2. By order and decree 23.03.2011, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, held that he did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit as its valuation was in excess of Rs.1 lakh and directed the return of the plaint. In appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2011, the learned VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet reversed this order and held that the suit had been properly valued at less than Rs.1 lakh and that the same was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel. The appellate Court directed the Court below to receive the plaint in O.S.No.56 of 2010 and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition by defendants 6 to 8 and 14.

3. The suit, O.S.No.56 of 2010, was filed for partition of the plaint A and B schedule lands; for recovery of possession in so far as the plaint B schedule land is concerned; for an injunction in respect of the plaint A schedule land; for a declaration in respect of the cancellation of the Form 13(B) certificate dated 16.11.2009 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doultabad, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1971’) and for costs.

4. Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 in the suit raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, to entertain the suit. By docket order dated 26.10.2010, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, considering the objection as one raised on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, held that he had the requisite jurisdiction to try the suit and repelled the objection. Thereupon, defendants 6 to 8 and 14 filed I.A.No.653 of 2010 seeking review of the docket order dated 26.10.2010 on the ground that they had raised an objection not on territorial jurisdiction but as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. Accepting their plea, the trial Court by its order dated 22.03.2011 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the valuation of the suit exceeded Rs.1 lakh.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2011 before the learned VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet. By order and decree dated 07.04.2011, the appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had rightly valued the suit and that the suit valuation was not in excess of Rs.1 lakh as found by the trial Court and accordingly reversed the order passed in I.A.No.653 of 2010 in O.S.No.56 of 2010.

6. Defendants 6 to 8 and 14 are in revision before this Court aggrieved by the said order and decree.

7. Heard Sri G.V.S.Ramaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 6 to 8 and 14, and Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel on caveat for the respondents/plaintiffs.

8. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

9. The prayer in the suit reflects that O.S.No.56 of 2010 was a multifarious suit as defined under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1956’). As per Section 6(1) of the Act of 1956, the plaint in such a case is chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of all the reliefs claimed. However, the proviso thereto clarifies that if a relief sought is only ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief. It would be apposite at this stage to detail the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. According to them, the plaint A schedule land being an extent of Ac.2.36 guntas in Survey No.391 of Begumpet Village of Medak District was in their joint possession along with defendants 1 to 5. However, the plaint B schedule land, being an extent of Ac.2.07 guntas in Survey No.425, Ac.1.04 guntas in Survey No.444 and Ac.1.03 guntas in Survey N