A plaintiff can seek both specific performance and alternative relief for refund in a single suit; jurisdiction is based on the higher relief's valuation under the A.P. Civil Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J :

This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., questioning the order dated 20.03.2024 in CFR No.106 of 2023 in an un-numbered OS No. of 2024 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

2. The relevant facts are as under :

Appellant is the plaintiff. Suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.04.2014 executed for a consideration of Rs.47,70,000/-. It was contended that a major part of sale consideration i.e., Rs.47,25,000/- was paid to the defendant, but the defendant was not coming forward to execute the sale deed, hence the suit for specific performance was filed.

3. Alternatively, the appellant sought refund of sale consideration amount with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The relief sought by the appellant/plaintiff was valued at Rs.1,08,42,666/-. The appellant paid Court fee of Rs.1,12,226/- on the highest pecuniary relief i.e., alternative relief.

4. The District Court had raised an objection that though the primary relief of specific performance of agreement of sale is for Rs.47,70,000/- only which is below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court even though, the alternative relief for refund of sale consideration is Rs.1,08,42,666/-, the suit is not maintainable in the said Court.

5. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the District Court returned the plaint by holding that the suit is not maintainable in the said Court reiterating the objection earlier taken. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Heard Sri T. Ashok Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant. Since the suit is not numbered, this Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent on this aspect as the issue is between the Court and the plaintiff.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Court fee is paid on the highest relief i.e., Rs.1,12,226/- on the alternative relief and relied on order of this Court in Tarlada Ramu v. Penki Raminaidu , CRP No.4154 of 2018; Rabo Bank v. State Bank of India , 2024 SCC Online Bom. 550 , of Bombay High Court and Sreekumara Samajam v. Thilakan , (2011) 4 KLT 452 , of Kerala High Court in support of his contention.

8. The issue that falls for consideration now is, whether the District Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit though the primary relief for specific performance is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.50 lakhs for District Court even though the alternative relief is for Rs.1,08,42,666/-.

9. In the cited case, Tarlada Ramu v. Penki Raminaidu (supra), the issue therein was with regard to valuation of suit for specific performance. In that case, this Court held that the Court fee has to be paid on the highest relief. In this case, there is no dispute as such, since the plaintiff/appellant had paid Court fee on the alternative relief for Rs.1,08,42,666. Similar is the ratio in Sreekumara Samajam v. Thilakan (supra), of Kerala High Court.

10. Section 16 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 specifies the pecuniary jurisdiction limit