Back
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE AND KUPPUSWAMI, JJ.
Gadde Veeramma – Petitioner
Versus
Bayipati Satyanarayana – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 134 of 1966
Decided on : 17-04-1969
COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT - SECTIONS 11(3), 16, 17 - VALUATION OF SUBJECT MATTER - APPELLATE COURT'S POWER TO DETERMINE CORRECTNESS OF ORDER PASSED BY LOWER COURT - APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER - SCOPE AND PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for possession of land, the defendant objected to the valuation of the subject matter and the court fee paid thereon. The trial court framed an issue on the valuation but did not decide it as the defendant did not press the issue. The appellate court, on its own motion, appointed a commissioner to determine the correct valuation of the land. The commissioner submitted a report finding the value of the land to be higher than that stated in the plaint. The appellate court accepted the commissioner's report and directed the plaintiff to pay additional court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court has the power under Section 11(3) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower court regarding the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the lower court and determine the proper fee payable thereon. The appellate court also has the power under Section 16(2) of the Act to hear and decide questions relating to valuation of subject-matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in a court raised in reports submitted by Court Fee Examiners. The court has the power under Section 17 of the Act to hold such inquiry as it considers necessary for the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of a suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, and may issue a commission to any person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court has the power to determine the correctness of an order passed by the lower court regarding the valuation of the subject matter of a suit and the fee paid thereon? 2. Whether the appellate court can appoint a commissioner to determine the correct valuation of the land? 3. Whether the report of the commissioner constitutes legal evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate court has the power under Section 11(3) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower court regarding the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the lower court and determine the proper fee payable thereon. 2. The appellate court also has the power under Section 16(2) of the Act to hear and decide questions relating to valuation of subject-matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in a court raised in reports submitted by Court Fee Examiners. 3. The court has the power under Section 17 of the Act to hold such inquiry as it considers necessary for the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of a suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, and may issue a commission to any person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the Court. 4. The report of the commissioner constitutes legal evidence.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
ORDER :
CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, J.
1. In this revision petition, a question of general importance is raised, regarding the scope of Sections 16, 17 and also sub-section (???) of Section 11 of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The suit out of which this revision petition arises relates to the recovery of possession of 87 cents of land, which was valued in the plaint at Rs. 600/-. In the written statement, the defendant disputed the valuation and the 3rd issue was framed as follows:
“Whether the valuation made is not proper?” Though the trial court dismissed the suit, its findings on the 3rd issue is that the valuation made is proper. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. But an officer deputed by the High Court and designated as a Court fee Examiner submitted a report to the Subordinate Judge's Court, which is the court of appeal that the suit and the appeal were not properly valued and that the value of 87 cents of land would be very much higher. On that the learned Subordinate Judge issued a commission to ascertain the value of the land the recovery of which was prayed for in the suit. Before the commissioner, it was stated that the defendant adduced evidence both oral and documentary and he gave a finding that each acre of wet land would cost about Rs. 3,000/- and on that basis the value of the land both in the plaint and the memorandum of appeal should be valued at Rs. 2,610/-. One of the points that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the defendant can be permitted to adduce additional evidence on Issue No. 3 ignoring the provisions of Order, 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in view of provisions of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Learned counsel appearing in the case both for the petitioner and for the Government have not placed before me any decisions which throw light on the question. The objection of the petitioner's learned Counsel is that the defendant in the present case is given an opportunity to adduce additional evidence on Issue No. 3, contrary to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. and that such a course is not permissible even under the provisions of the Andhra Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. It may also be noted in this context that the question of valuation may also sometimes involve a question of jurisdiction and not merely a question of collection of Court-fee, Since this is a question of general importance, I direct that this revision be posted before a Bench.
2. This petition then came on for final hearing in pursuance of the reference made by order of court dated 4-11-1966 before the Bench consisting of Gopal Rao Ekbote and Kuppuswamy JJ. Mr. I.A. Naidu, Advocate for the petitioner.
3. 3rd Government Pleader and Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate on court Notice.
JUDGMENT :
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.:
This revision petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru made on 16th December, 1965. It arises in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner instituted O.S. No. 123 of 1963 in the court of the Principal District Munsif, Kovur for possession of 87 cents of land and for past mesne profits for the years 1960 to 1963 with interest thereon at the rate of 5½% per annum. She valued the subject matter of the suit at Rs. 600/-.
3. The defendant objected to the valuation and stated that the valuation was incorrectly made and that the court fee paid thereon was not adequate.
4. The lower court framed issue No. 3 in regard to the dispute relating to valuation of the subject matter of the suit and the payment of court-fee thereon. At the time of final disposal of the suit, the learned District Munsif observed in regard to issue No. 3 that the issue was not seriously contested before him by the defendant. He therefore found that the valuation given by the plaintiff and the court-fees paid by her thereon need not be disturbed.
5. Since the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on other grounds, the plaintiff appe
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
