ORDER:

The present Revision Petition has been filed against an Order dated

14.10.2020 in I.A.No.206 of 2020 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Heard Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.M.Siva Jothi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioners are the defendants in the above referred suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-

a) Declare the registered gift deed dated 02.06.2020 which is registered as Doc.No.2435/2020 by Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa Rural, executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant as null and void;

b) Grant permanent injunction restraining the 2 nd defendant and his men from constructing a house in the plaint schedule property;

c) Direct the defendants to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiffs; and d) Grant such other or further reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;

4. In the plaint, the value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction is mentioned as follows:-

“The suit is filed for declaration of the registered gift deed dated

2.6.2020 which is registered as document No.2435/2020 which is executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant as null and void. The Value of the said gift deed is Rs.27,90,000/- on which an ad valorem Court Fee of Rs.30,426/- is paid U/s 24(d) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

Since the suit is also filed for permanent injunction restraining the 2 nd defendant from making construction of the building in the plaint schedule property which is incapable of value and the said relief is notionally valued at Rs.50,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs.2,386/- is paid U/s 26(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.”

5. The petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.206 of 2020 under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC R/w Sections 151, 141 and 94(e) of CPC seeking to reject the plaint at the threshold itself without going into any other aspects. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A, it was inter alia contended that the respondent/plaintiff had taken shelter under Section

24(d) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act, 1956 and valued the same at Rs.27,90,000/- by adopting the market value of the property shown in the Registered Gift Deed and so far as the relief of permanent injunction, it was valued at

Rs.50,000/- and Court Fee was paid under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act, 1956 and that the said reliefs in the plaint are not properly valued in terms of Section 24(d) and 26(e) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

6. It was further alleged that the respondent/plaintiff played deliberate fraud on the Hon’ble Court, misused the provisions of Law and got the plaint numbered. While pleading that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold, it was further contended that the respondent/plaintiff had absolutely no right to adopt market value that was mentioned in the Registered Gift Deed and ought to have followed the market value of the plaint schedule property contained in the records of the Sub-Registrar at Kadapa as on the date of filing of the suit. Regarding the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, it was pleaded that the same was under-valued and the Court Fees ought to have been paid on the market value of property i.e., Rs.30,01,000/- as per the Valuation Certificate obtained by the petitioners and that the respondent had no right to notionally value the relief in respect of permanent injunction. It was also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in view of pendency of

O.S.No.269 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa wherein the relief of partition in respect of the same subject matter property was pending and hit by provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of CPC.

7. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter, inter alia, denying the allegations