Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Developers, rep. by its Managing Partners, Mr. Anumula Srujan & Mr. Chilukamarri Ravi - Petitioner
Versus
Arepally Jeevan Rao - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.318 Of 2022
Decided On : 07-06-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 - Section 39 - Contract of sale - Schedule property – Possession - Suit for specific performance of contract - Suits for cancellation of decrees - suits for dissolution of partnership - Perpetual injunction - Plaint that sale consideration of suit land to an extent of Acs.02-16 guntas and market value per acre, as per agreement of sale - Hence, Court fee of is paid under Section - 39 of Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 - In respect of prayer of perpetual injunction, relief is valued at Rs.10,000/- and paid a Court fee of Rs.786/- which according to plaintiff is sufficient - Petitioner herein is claiming specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of land admeasuring Acs.02-16 guntas out of agreed land of Acs.03-32 guntas -Whether petitioner - plaintiff has to pay Court fee on entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.03-32 guntas as agreed under agreement of sale dated or on Acs.02-16 guntas as claimed by plaintiff– High Court of Andhra Pradesh had dealt with a case wherein the plaintiff sought for an Injunction, when the defendant is not only interfering with plaintiffs possession of the property but also denying the plaintiffs title. The Court had ruled that the Court fee has to be paid under section 26(a) of Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1956. (Para 41).
Finding of the Court: Only disputes with value beyond a certain threshold are adjudicated by Commercial Courts; and naturally absolute amount of Court fee are also on higher side - There are several instances of cases being filed before Commercial Courts, with deficit Court fee and parties to such cases have to file a separate application for condonation of delay in paying deficit Court fee - Such applications being increased load in Judiciary, hence, Advocates and Courts have to be vigilant in calculating correct Court fee before Presenting plaint - Parties and the lower Judiciary will have to carefully scrutinize pleadings mentioned in plaint to arrive at a correct conclusion for payment of Court fee aspect - Conclusion has to be in accordance with the settled legal principles discussed above and also in various other judgments rendered by Constitutional Courts, which are holding the field.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. 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 thesaid 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:-
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.
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....
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.
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....
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.
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
