Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Developers - Petitioner
Versus
Arepally Jeevan Rao – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 318 of 2022
Decided On : 07-06-2022
Court Fee - Specific Performance of Contract - Sections 20 to 47, 39 of the Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 39 of the Act and relevant precedents to determine the correct court fee payable in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The court held that the petitioner had to pay court fee only on the extent of land claimed in the suit, not on the entire land mentioned in the agreement of sale. The objection raised by the lower court was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The court provided insights on the issue of court fee in suits for declaration, injunction, dissolution of partnership firm, and cancellation of decrees, and concluded that parties and lower judiciary must carefully scrutinize the pleadings to arrive at a correct conclusion for payment of court fee in accordance with settled legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale and for possession of land. The office of the District Judge returned the plaint with objections regarding the payment of court fee. The petitioner resubmitted the plaint, but the court below passed an order without assigning any reason and delegated its judicial function to the office. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection raised by the lower court was unsustainable and set aside the orders. It provided insights on the issue of court fee in various types of suits and concluded that parties and lower judiciary must carefully scrutinize the pleadings to arrive at a correct conclusion for payment of court fee in accordance with settled legal principles.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the correct payment of court fee in a suit for specific performance of a contract and the delegation of judicial function by the lower court to the office.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had to pay court fee only on the extent of land claimed in the suit, not on the entire land mentioned in the agreement of sale. It also provided insights on the issue of court fee in suits for declaration, injunction, dissolution of partnership firm, and cancellation of decrees, and concluded that parties and lower judiciary must carefully scrutinize the pleadings to arrive at a correct conclusion for payment of court fee in accordance with settled legal principles.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the orders of the lower court were set aside. The court directed the lower court to number the suit on payment of court fee on the land admeasuring Acs.02-16 guntas as mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint.
ORDER :
If an error emanate from non-adherence of the procedure (or the rule), the life of the litigation will become complex. While passing orders, lower judiciary should take a note that their application of judicious mind at the right time, in a right way, will ease the load on higher judiciary. The present case is a class example.
PART - ‘A’ PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:-
(a) FACTUAL BACKGROUND :-
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Order passed in C.F.R.No.2540 of 2021 dated 21-12-2021 and C.F.R.No.2490 of 2021 dated 03-01- 2022 by the learned District Judge, Adilabad.
2. Heard Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
i) SUIT INSTITUTED:-
3. The petitioner herein had filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale and for possession. The suit schedule property is land admeasuring Acs.02-16 guntas in Sy.No.114 (after mutation in the name of the defendant, it is separately identified as Sy.No.114/A, in Revenue records and after introduction of Dharani Portal by the Government of Telangana State, the suit land is again identified by separate survey number as Sy.No.114/A7), situated at Kadthal Revenue Village Shivar, Soan Mandal, Nirmal District.
ii) PLAINT VALUED AT:-
4. It is mentioned in the plaint that the sale consideration of suit land to an extent of Acs.02-16 guntas and market value is Rs.3,24,00,000/- @ Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre, as per the agreement of sale. Hence, the Court fee of Rs.3,26,426/- is paid under Section - 39 of the Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
In respect of prayer of perpetual injunction, the relief is valued at Rs.10,000/- and paid a Court fee of Rs.786/- which according to the plaintiff is sufficient under Section -26 (C) of the Act.
Thus, a total Court Fee of Rs.3,27,212/-is paid.
iii) OBJECTION RAISED BY THE OFFICE:-
5. The Office of the l e a r n e d District Judge, Adilabad, has returned the said plaint with the following objections:-
2. As per the details of Dharani the land existing is Ac. 3-06 gts., then state under which document the Plaintiff is claiming Ac.2-16 gts.,.
It is averred in the plaint that L.A.O. acquired same land for N.H. Therefore, at least the proceedings of L.A.O is to be file to ascertain the extent land actually acquired in the Sy.No.114, to know the original extent of land. Hence, the Court Fee paid is in sufficient andnot in accordance with Section 39 of Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956.
Hence, may be returned.”
iv) THE EXPLANATION BY THE PETITIONER:-
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner resubmitted the plaint on 28.12.2021 with the following explanation:
The Plaintiff paid the Court Fee on the market value of the land to an extent of Ac.2-16 gts., only in Sy.No.114, where as “Dharani” records show the extent of land is Ac.03- 06 gts., in Sy.No.114, which is the subject matter of the suit.
It is to submit that in the Sale Agreement, it is noted that consideration of land is Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre and the consideration amount will be paid only to the land available after its measuring. But the land was neither measured nor any document showing that the land at present available is Ac.2-16 gts., only. In the above said circumstances, the suit was returned to pay the Court Fee as per Section 39 (a) of Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956, for the extent shown in “Dharani” records.
But today, the case is resubmitted with a request to May be heard on bench”.
v) IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE:-
7. The Court below, by an order dated 03.01.2022 passed the following:-
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correct payment of court fee in a suit must be determined in accordance with settled legal principles and the specific provisions of the C....
It is the settled position that the relief of injunction under Section 26(c) of the Act has to be valued on the basis of the advantage sought to be derived or the loss to be averted by the plaintiff.
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of court fee in a partition suit is based on the market value of the property or a specified amount, and the plaintiff's alle....
In suits for declaratory decrees with consequential relief, fixed court fees apply when no possession is sought, as per Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act.
Interim Application - Contract for sale - Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be same in certain suits - When there is a reasonable doubt with respect to quantum of court fees, the benefit mu....
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
