The pecuniary jurisdiction for an appeal is determined strictly by the valuation assigned to the suit for the purpose of computing court fees as prescribed by the relevant state statutes, rather than the market value of the property in dispute.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S. S. Prasad, Sr.Advocate Assisted by Sri N. Chidamabara Sastry

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : Sri I. Madhu Babu, Representing Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam

Gist :

Head Note:

Cases Referred:

1. 1991 SCC OnLine AP 1

2. 1998 SCC OnLine AP 648 (FB)

3. 1964 SCC OnLine AP 100

4. AIR 1958 SC 245

5. (2022) 13 SCC 221

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri S. S. Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N. Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri I. Madhu Babu, learned counsel, representing Smt. S. A. V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 & 2, on the point of maintainability of the appeal, in view of the objections raised by the Registry.

Facts:

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.S.No.25 of 2025 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram against the appellant (1st defendant) and the respondent Nos.4 to 10 (defendants No.2 to 8). The suit was for declaration and injunction. The prayer in the suit reads as under:

“IX. Prayer:

It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants:

1. By Declaring the plaintiffs and as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property;

2. For consequential injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, and other claiming to them from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

3. For consequentially declaring that the Settlement Deed No.2806/2025, dated 24-03-2025 as sham document and is null and void.

4. For the costs of the suit.

5. And for other relief and reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The plaintiffs/respondents also filed I.A.No.306 of 2025 for grant of temporary injunction, which after contest was allowed vide Order dated 18.07.2025, granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants in the suit and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the petition schedule property until disposal of the suit.

4. Challenging the Order dated 18.07.2025, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/1st defendant in the suit.

Office Objection:

5. An office objection with respect to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction was raised. The office objection is as follows:

“1. Please clarify and state as to how this CMA SR is entertainable in this Hon’ble High Court with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction since the I.A.306/2025 in O.S.No.25/2025 is from Court of Senior Civil Judge where upon CMA lies in District Court.

2. Please verify the plaint for valuation of Appeal since as per the plaint copy, “Relief for declaration and consequential injunction, the value is Rs.33,33,300/-“ a