Syed Haneefuddin vs Omer Mustafa - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20439

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Telangana State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act - Section 11(2) - Suit for specific performance - Valuation of court fee - Dispute regarding sale consideration - Court fee must be computed based on averments in plaint, not on contents of written statement - Disputed questions of fact regarding valuation require full-fledged trial and cannot be decided at pre-trial stage without evidence. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The revision petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement concerning land measuring Ac.14.15 Gts., valuing the suit at Rs.3,60,00,000/-. The respondents contended that the agreed sale consideration was Rs.3,60,00,000/- per acre, making the total consideration Rs.51,75,00,000/-, and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to fix court fee. The Trial Court allowed the application, directing the petitioners to pay court fee on the remaining amount.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there is a serious dispute about the sale consideration, which is an issue of fact requiring evidence. The court held that valuation of court fee must be based on the plaint averments, and the respondents' interpretation cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage. The appropriate course is to frame an issue and, if necessary, direct payment of deficit court fee after trial, but not reject the plaint or demand payment without evidence.

Issues: Whether the court fee can be determined at a pre-trial stage when there is a dispute about the sale consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when there is a dispute about the sale consideration, it becomes an issue of fact requiring evidence. The court fee cannot be determined at a pre-trial stage without oral and documentary evidence, and the valuation must be based on the plaint averments, not the defendants' claims. Result : Civil Revision Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and I.A. dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for specific performance — Dispute over sale consideration — Trial court directed payment of court fee on higher valuation against which revision filed. (Para 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioners: court fee based on plaint, dispute requires trial. Respondents: document clearly shows per acre rate. (Para 7 , 9 )

3. Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; trial court to decide court fee issue after evidence. (Para 13 )

4. Can court fee be determined at pre-trial stage when sale consideration is disputed?

No, it is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence and cannot be decided without trial. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )

5. What is the basis for valuing court fee in a suit for specific performance?

Valuation must be based on plaint averments, not on written statement or disputed documents. (Para 8 , 11 )

6. What is the proper procedure when deficit court fee is alleged?

The court should frame an issue, decide after trial, and cannot reject plaint at pre-trial stage. (Para 12 )

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.830 of 2025

09^th DAY OF JUNE, 2026

Between:

Syed Haneefuddin and another

…Revision petitioners

and

Omer Mustafa and 4 others

…Respondents

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. K.K.Waghray, learned counsel for the revision

petitioners and Mr. Pramod Nemali, learned counsel

representing Mr. Preetam Chand Yadav, learned counsel for

respondents. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the

petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2025

passed by the learned X Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar (for short “Trial Court”) in I.A.No.387 of

2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2024, wherein, the said petition filed

under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC r/w Section 11(2) of Telangana

State Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, to fix the court fee, has

::2::

been allowed directing the petitioners herein to pay court fee on

Rs.51,75,00,000/- by deducting court fee already paid for

Rs.3.6 Crores i.e. the petitioners are directed to pay court fee of

Rs.48,15,00,000/- within a period of 2 months approximately,

failing which, the plaint would be rejected.

3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioners

herein filed a suit for specific performance with respect to land

to an extent of Ac.14.15 Gts., in Sy.No.16 of Sajjannapally

Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District by showing the

valuation of suit at Rs.3,60,00,000/-. While so, the

respondents/defendants referred to a handwritten document

dated 04.03.2023, which is reproduced as under:

“NO ADVANCE

REGISTRATION FROM BACK – 3 SALE DEED

NOC TO BE GIVEN BY OWNER’S FOR COURT

PROCEEDINGS.

RATE 3.6 CR/ACRE- TOTAL LAND AC. 14.15 GUNTAS.

SETTLEMENT/COURT PROCEEDINGS WILL BE

SETTLED BY THE PURCHASERS AT THEIR OWN

EXPENSE.

DEAL TO BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 23-09-

2023 BY THE PURCHASERS.

REGISTRATION OF LAND WILL BE DONE BY THE

PREVALENT GOVERNMENT VALUE.

POSSESSION OF LAND WILL BE GIVEN AFTER

REGISTRATION.”

::3::

4. On the basis of above document, it is pleaded that the

sale consideration for each acre is agreed to be

Rs.3,60,00,000/- and said amount is not for entire land of

Ac.14.15 Gts. To be precise, the respondents/defendants claim

that the agreed sale consideration has to be Ac.14.15 Gts. X

Rs.3,60,00,000/- which would be Rs.51,75,00,000/-, whereas,

the suit is undervalued and court fee is paid for only

Rs.3,60,00,000/- and therefore, an Interlocutory Application is

filed vide I.A.No.387 of 2024 to fix the court fee.

5. The petitioners herein opposed the Interlocutory

application referring to case laws in N. Vittal Rao v. N. Raja

Rao, 1997 (6) ALT 670 and Pranit Projects (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and others v.

Goundra Yadaiah and others2

6. The Trial Court came to a conclusion that Minutes dated

04.03.2023 clearly establish that the sale consideration per

acre is Rs.3,60,00,000/- but not the total extent of Ac.14.15

Gts. It is also held that a CD dated 23.07.2023 was submitted

and the same clearly shows that the total sale consideration is

not Rs.3,60,00,000/- but Rs.3,60,00,000/- per Acre i.e. the

2 2014 (6) ALD 232

::4::

total sale consideration would be Rs.51,75,00,000/-. Since,

court fee is already paid on Rs.3,60,00,000/-, the petitioners

are directed to pay court fee on the remaining amount of

Rs.48,15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by said finding of the Trial Court,

the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

7. In grounds of revision, the petitioners pleaded that for

the purpose of filing a suit for specific performance, the

payment of court fee is governed by Section 39(a) A of Court Fee

Act and as per language of said section, court fee is payable on

the consideration amount. Petitioners have paid Court Fee on

the consideration amount shown in the plaint based on the

agreement and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside. It is further pleaded that in a suit for specific

performance, when there is a dispute about the sale

consideration, the Court cannot decide the jurisdiction under

Section 11(2) of Court Fee Act and the same has to be dealt

after trial. Further,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20439

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Syed Haneefuddin – Appellant
Versus
Omer Mustafa – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.830 of 2025

When there is a dispute regarding the sale consideration for court fee valuation in a specific performance suit, it is a question of fact requiring trial and cannot be decided at a pre-trial stage without evidence.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can court fee be determined at pre-trial stage when sale consideration is disputed?

5. What is the basis for valuing court fee in a suit for specific performance?

6. What is the proper procedure when deficit court fee is alleged?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20439

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADRenuka Yara, JSyed Haneefuddin – AppellantVersusOmer Mustafa – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.830 of 2025

When there is a dispute regarding the sale consideration for court fee valuation in a specific performance suit, it is a question of fact requiring trial and cannot be decided at a pre-trial stage without evidence.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can court fee be determined at pre-trial stage when sale consideration is disputed?

5. What is the basis for valuing court fee in a suit for specific performance?

6. What is the proper procedure when deficit court fee is alleged?

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Syed Haneefuddin – Appellant
Versus
Omer Mustafa – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.830 of 2025