Judgment : The Office has raised an objection on the maintainability of this appeal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit was valued at Rs.5 lakhs under Section 17(1)(ii)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’). From the decree of the trial Court, an appeal lies to the District Court when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding is not more than Rs.5 lakhs. The Registry has, therefore, raised an objection to which the learned counsel for the appellant replied that as the subsequent interest has been added, the value of the appeal has come to Rs.9,76,465/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court. At the hearing, Sri Vanam Vishwanatham, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon Explanation-(3) to Section 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which envisages inclusion of interest awarded subsequent to the institution of the suit and that the same shall be deemed to be the subject matter of the appeal. Section 49 of the said Act deals with payment of Court fees. The said provision therefore cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of an appellate Court. Section 17 of the Act being the substantive provision, which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, the jurisdiction of the Courts has to be determined with reference to the said provision. Section 17(1)(ii)(a) of the Act prescribed the amount or the value of the subject matter of the suit or the proceeding as the criterion for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court and not the value of the appeal, increased on account of addition of interest to the value of the suit. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Office objections are sustained. The Registry is directed to return the appeal to the appellant for being presented before the District Court.