Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 731 (AP)

Bhojanapu Narasimhulu v. Bhojanapu Surendra

2000-09-21

Y.V.NARAYANA

body2000
Y. V. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) C. R. P. No. 290 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner (3rd defendant) having been aggrieved by the order dated 16-10-1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Piler in o. S. No. 104 of 1995. C. R. P. No. 3089 of 1997 is also filed by the very same petitioner (3rd defendant) challenging the order dated 17-7-1997 in C. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Piler. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties to these revisions are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. ( 3 ) IT would be necessary to narrate the facts giving rise to the filing of the two revisions which are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 104 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Vayalpad for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendants took the preliminary objection that the suit is not correctly valued stating that the suit property as per the Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Vayalpad is more than Rs. 2,40,000-00 and so the District munsif s Court at Vayalpad has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned District Munsif tried the preliminary issue and held that since the value of the plaint schedule land is more than Rs. 2,40,000-00 per acre and Ac. 4-01 cent of plaint schedule land will be more than Rs. 8 lakhs and odd and therefore the district Munsif s Court, Vayalpad has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. Pursuant to the order of the District Munsif, vayalpad, the plaint appears to have been presented before the Sub-Court, Piler. But the learned Subordinate Judge, Piler, in his turn, returned the plaint for presentation before proper Court having jurisdiction to try under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC holding that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is notionally fixed at Rs. 50,000-00 and as such it is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district Munsif s Court, Vayalpad. But the learned Subordinate Judge, Piler, in his turn, returned the plaint for presentation before proper Court having jurisdiction to try under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC holding that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is notionally fixed at Rs. 50,000-00 and as such it is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district Munsif s Court, Vayalpad. Aggrieved by that order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Piler dated 16-10-1997 C. R. P. No. 290 of 1997 is filed by the 3rd defendant and this Court admitted the C. R. P. No. 290 of 1997 and granted stay of all further proceedings. ( 4 ) C. R. P. No. 3089 of 1997 is also filed by the 3rd defendant having been aggrieved by the order dated 17th July 1997 passed by the learned Appellate Authority-cum- subordinate Judge, Piler in C. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 which was preferred under section 47-A (4) and (5) of Indian Stamp Act 1899 as amended by Act 22 of 1971, against the order passed by the District Collector in proceedings R. Dis Spl A. No. 4345/95 dated 22-10-1996 confirming the value of the property as shown by the Joint Sub- registrar. The brief facts of this matter are as follows: Respondents 1 to 3 herein purchased extent of Ac. 4-01 cents of land in survey No. 1029/2 of Obulampalle village, vayalpad Mandal for a consideration of rs. 60,000-00 from one K. Krishna Reddy under the sale deed dated 15-5-1995 and paid stamp duty of Rs. 6,600-00 on the said document and presented the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar concerned. The Sub-Registrar took the view that the subject matter of the instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument and after enquiry the Sub-Registrar fixed the market value of the property at rs. 9,67,700-00 as per basic value register and charged stamp duty of Rs. 1,03,830-00 and ordered the appellants to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 99,319-00 plus registration fee of Rs. 4,515-00 on the document. Having been aggrieved by this order passed by the Sub-Registrar respondents 1 to 3 herein have preferred c. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 on the file of the appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate judge, Piler, who by his order dated 17-7-1997 allowed the said appeal in part fixing the market value of the property at rs. 4,515-00 on the document. Having been aggrieved by this order passed by the Sub-Registrar respondents 1 to 3 herein have preferred c. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 on the file of the appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate judge, Piler, who by his order dated 17-7-1997 allowed the said appeal in part fixing the market value of the property at rs. 80,000-00 and directed the appellants (respondents 1 to 3 herein) to remit the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,222-00 with due and proportionate registration fees. Challenging the said order dated 17-7-1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, piler, the 3rd defendant in the suit has filed c. R. P No. 3089 of 1997. ( 5 ) AS the subject matter of the property involved in both the revisions is one and the same, both the C. R. Ps are clubbed and heard together and a common order is being passed. ( 6 ) AT the outset it must be stated that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is unsustainable. On the basis of the market value certificate the District Munsif, vayalpad returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. The subordinate Judge, Piler ought to have taken the plaint on file and ought to have framed a separate issue and ought to have decided that issue as a preliminary issue instead of returning the plaint at the threshold without going into the question of jurisdiction. In the circumstances I direct the learned Subordinate Judge to receive the plaint, entertain the suit and frame an issue on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction along with other issues and decide the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The order of the subordinate Judge, Piler dated 16-10-1997 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Subordinate judge, Piler for the above said purpose. ( 7 ) C. R. P. No. 290 of 1997 is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) AS already stated above, C. R. P. No. 3089 of 1997 has been filed by the 3rd defendant. The grievance of the 3rd defendant is that he has not been made a party and no notice has been given to him in C. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 before deciding the matter. ( 8 ) AS already stated above, C. R. P. No. 3089 of 1997 has been filed by the 3rd defendant. The grievance of the 3rd defendant is that he has not been made a party and no notice has been given to him in C. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 before deciding the matter. Since the subject matter of the document is also the subject matter in the suit and in respect of the very same property the plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 104 of 1995 against the defendants including the revision petitioner in this revision petition (3rd defendant in the said suit), I deem it a fit case to direct the learned subordinate Judge to give an opportunity to the 3rd defendant to assist the Court in arriving at a correct valuation. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge in C. M. A. No. 10 of 1997 dated 17-7-1997 is also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Subordinate Judge with a direction to give notice to the 3rd defendant and hear him and decide the matter on merits. C. R. P. No. 3089 of 1997 is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.