ORDER : Defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.132 of 2021 in O.S.No.4 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. 2. Respondent, being plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.4 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur seeking following reliefs: i) dissolution of partnership firm “M/s Bharathi Rural Enterprises”, ii) appointment of a receiver for proper management and realization of all the amounts due to the plaintiff and iii) for taking of accounts and for ascertaining the amounts due from the defendants to the plaintiff as their share in the partnership, iv) to pass a decree for allotment of share of partnership estate in favour of plaintiff v) the costs of the suit and vi) to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. Plaint schedule property is described as – “Warehouses (15000 MT capacity) and Weighbridge (60 Metric Tons capacity), Office room located in Sy.No.854/C, Ac.6.73 cents at Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat of Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District.” 4. In the plaint, it was contended that plaintiff and defendants with an intention to do warehouse business in Nandikotkur village and Mandal under the name and style of M/s Bharathi Rural Enterprises, entered a partnership by mutual discussion. Shares of each partner are delineated in the plaint. On 08.10.2003 plaintiff and defendants purchased the property under document No.1745 of 2003, being partners of M/s Bharathi Rural Enterprises for a consideration of Rs.2,49,500/- and each of the partner is in possession and enjoyment of the land. Plaintiff paid 15% of investment for purchase of land and, also for stamp duty and registration and remaining 85% was invested by defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 under the agreement are permitted to act as managing partners of the firm. They are also authorized to operate the bank account and to keep proper accounts of business. Plaintiff and defendants also invested cash for advancement of partnership business as and when necessary. Defendants 1 and 2 as per the partnership agreement, began to act as managing partners and carry on the business, however, failed to discharge their duties in the best interest of the firm. They have been misappropriating the funds and are not maintaining proper accounts. Plaintiff and defendants also invested cash for advancement of partnership business as and when necessary. Defendants 1 and 2 as per the partnership agreement, began to act as managing partners and carry on the business, however, failed to discharge their duties in the best interest of the firm. They have been misappropriating the funds and are not maintaining proper accounts. From the financial year 2014-15 to till date of filing of suit, defendants 1 and 2 did not show any accounts of the firm to plaintiff. Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 27.11.2020 to dissolve the firm and for settlement of accounts. Defendants having received the notice, kept quiet. In furtherance of partnership business, the firm constructed 15000 MT capacity warehouses and 60 Tones capacity of weighbridge along with office in S.No.854/C in Ac.6.73 cents at Nandikotkur village. With these averments in brief, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra. 5. As per the plaint, valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is shown at Rs.30 lakhs i.e. 15% of share of plaintiff, out of Rs.2 crores. Accordingly, court fee of Rs.32,426/- is paid under Sections 33 and 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short “CF Act”). 6. Defendants filed I.A.No.132 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that among the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff, one of the reliefs is allotment of share in partnership estate involves immovable property covered by document No.1714 of 2003 dated 17.10.2003. Plaintiff paid court fee under Sections 33 and 20 of the CF Act. Section 33 of the CF Act applies only for dissolution of partnership accounts or accounts of dissolved partnership and the said provision does not cover allotment of share of partnership estate. Partnership estate comprises of immovable property. Section 21 of CF Act deals with immovable property and the Court fee shall be computed on 3/4th of market value of property. Section 33 of the CF Act applies only for dissolution of partnership accounts or accounts of dissolved partnership and the said provision does not cover allotment of share of partnership estate. Partnership estate comprises of immovable property. Section 21 of CF Act deals with immovable property and the Court fee shall be computed on 3/4th of market value of property. As per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1987 (for short “CF Rules”), the market value of land in suits falling under various sections of the Act shall be deemed to be the immovable property both in Urban and Rural Areas fixed by the Registration and Stamps Department and the party filing suit shall pay a Court fee as per the market value certificate. Respondent/plaintiff failed to file market value certificate as required under Rule 3 of the CF Rules. Market value certificate filed along with petition, the value of property comes to Rs.13,02,92,800/- and 15% of it comes to Rs.1,95,432,920/-. Thus, the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and hence, filed the petition to reject the plaint. 8. Respondent filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended that the subject land was purchased at Rs.2,49,500/- on 08.10.2003. Defendants filed valuation for Rs.13,02,92,800/- for an extent of 32573.2 square yards. The land value of subject land has to be taken in acres only. The market value certificate was issued as per the requisition made by defendants in yard basis. The land was not divided either into commercial or residential plots. As such taking land valuation on yardage basis for large piece of land is not prudential. In a suit for dissolution of partnership firm, a receiver will be appointed, and he will independently evaluate the value of the firm and divide the same. As per Section 33 (1) of the CF Act, plaintiff can file suit on his own estimate and Court fee will be paid accordingly. As per the balance sheet for the financial year ending with 31.03.2018 filed in the suit, the total assets of the firm, comes to Rs.36,87,826.50p and eventually, prayed to dismiss the application. 9. The Court below by order dated 24.11.2021 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 10. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 11. 9. The Court below by order dated 24.11.2021 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 10. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that one of the reliefs sought for in the suit is to pass a decree for allotment of share in partnership estate in favour of plaintiff and the property as per plaint schedule is Ac.6.73 cents in S.No.854/C of Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat, Kurnool Mandal. He also would submit that immovable property involved in the suit is to be valued as per Rule 3 of the CF Rules. He also would submit that as per market value certificate filed along with petition, the total value of property comes to Rs.13,02,92,800/- and 15% of it comes to Rs.1,95,432,920/-, as such the Court of Senior Civil Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, however, the Court below without considering these aspects dismissed the application and thus, prayed to allow the revision. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would submit that Section 33 of the CF Act prescribes fee to be paid in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accordingly Court fee was paid valuing the same notionally as estimated by the plaintiff. He also would submit that in fact, plaintiff made an averment in the plaint that if the plaintiff”s share is more value than the value assessed in the plaint, he is ready to pay the deficit Court fee. He would submit that value of property for the financial year 2016 is shown as Rs.29,71,482/-. The market value certificate filed by defendants is as per yardage basis, but not acreage and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the Court can interfere with the notional valuation made by the plaintiff? Whether the plaintiff is permitted to value the suit notionally as per his whims and fancies? 14. Suit O.S.No.4 of 2021 was filed for dissolution of partnership firm; appointment of receiver for proper management; for taking of accounts and for ascertaining the accounts as per share and to allotment of share in the partnership estate etc. Whether the plaintiff is permitted to value the suit notionally as per his whims and fancies? 14. Suit O.S.No.4 of 2021 was filed for dissolution of partnership firm; appointment of receiver for proper management; for taking of accounts and for ascertaining the accounts as per share and to allotment of share in the partnership estate etc. The partnership estate is consisting of Warehouses (15000 MT capacity) and Weighbridge (60 Metric Tons capacity), Office room and land of extent of Sy.No.854/C, Ac.6.73 cents at Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat of Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. It is also undisputed fact that all the partners purchased property under registered sale deed dated 08.10.2003 vide document No.1714 of 2003. 15. Plaintiff for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, valued the suit at Rs.2 crores and 15% of his share comes to Rs.30 lakhs and accordingly, Court fee of Rs.32,426/- was paid under Sections 33 an 20 of the CF Act. Since the value of plaint shown is Rs.30 lakhs, suit was filed before the Senior Civil Judge. 16. Section 33 of the CF Act prescribes court fee payable in a suit for dissolution of partnership. Section 33 (1) adumbrates, fee payable in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, on the value of the plaintiffs share in the partnership “as estimated by the plaintiff”. Section 33 (2) deals with the situation, where the plaintiffs share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint, unless the plaintiff pays the differential fee, plaintiff is not entitled to any decree be it preliminary or final decree. Sub Rule (4) of Section 33 clarifies that whether or not a decree is passed, payment made or property allotted under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the fee payable under either of the said sub sections shall be recoverable as if it were an arrears of land revenue. 17. Rule 3 of the CF Rules deals with determination of market value based on the registers maintained by the Registration authority. The Market value of land in suits falling under various sections of the Act shall be deemed to be the immovable property both in Urban and Rural Areas fixed by the Registration and Stamps department. Market value of the land for the purpose of valuation based on basic register maintained by the Registration authority is proper and reasonable. 18. The Market value of land in suits falling under various sections of the Act shall be deemed to be the immovable property both in Urban and Rural Areas fixed by the Registration and Stamps department. Market value of the land for the purpose of valuation based on basic register maintained by the Registration authority is proper and reasonable. 18. In Chillakuru Chenchurami Reddy Vs. Kanupuru Chenchuram Reddy, 1968 (1) ALT 1 , a reference was made to the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to consider the following issues: 1. Whether in a suit governed by Sections 32 and 33 of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, in which the Plaint is registered, the amount estimated in the plaint is liable to be reviewed, and, as a consequence the plaintiff is bound to amend the valuation and pay higher court-fee? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative whether the liability to amend the plaint and pay the additional court-fee should be confined only to cases of deliberate under-estimation of the amount or sham valuation, or extends to every case where the defendant contends that the amount sued for is inaccurate and not approximate; and also whether the investigation can extend beyond the averments in the plaint? 3. Whether, if, as a result of the review under Section 11 (b), the amount estimated in the plaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, the Court would lose its jurisdiction to try the suit? 19. While answering the reference, the Full Bench observed thus: “… … The choice of the forum and the liberty to pay nominal fee are not to be left to the caprice of the plaintiff. The difficulty experienced by a plaintiff in giving a precise valuation does not entitle him to arbitrarily and deliberately under, value the relief sought by him. While answering the reference, the Full Bench observed thus: “… … The choice of the forum and the liberty to pay nominal fee are not to be left to the caprice of the plaintiff. The difficulty experienced by a plaintiff in giving a precise valuation does not entitle him to arbitrarily and deliberately under, value the relief sought by him. He is bound to make a genuine and honest effort to value the relief; if he does not do so and if the valuation given by him bears no relation to reality the Court can and indeed must intervene and exercise its powers under Order VII Rules 10 and 11, of course with due regard and proper appreciation of the difficulty of the plaintiff.” “The Court should not endeavour to correct the plaintiff's valuation except in a clear case where the disparity is so great as to show that the plaintiff has not endeavored to fix a fair value at all but has simply set down a figure which is unreasonable and bears no relation to the value of the right litigated.” “The amount of fee is computed ad valroem according to the value fixed in the plaint and the plaintiff is required to state that value. That value controls the value for Court fee purposes and controls the jurisdiction. That value (like any other of the values which should appear in a plaint) is not necessarily final.” Eventually, the Full Bench answered first Question in reference in affirmative and held thus: “In the light of the foregoing discussion, we answer the first question in the affirmative, but we hasten to add that where the question of valuation affects the jurisdiction of the Court, it must be decided before the hearing of the suit.” 20. In respect of second question in reference, the Full Bench further observed thus: “Whatever may be the reason for the under estimation, whether it is deliberate, or whether it is the result of the indifference or inaccurate calculation, or any other case, the Court has power to amend the valuation if the estimate is one which is not acceptable to a prudent and reasonable man”. The Full Bench answered the third question thus: “If the amended valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint must be returned for presentation to the proper Court”. 21. In Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. The Full Bench answered the third question thus: “If the amended valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint must be returned for presentation to the proper Court”. 21. In Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989 = (1980) 1 SCC 616 , the Apex Court held that – “There must be a genuine effort on the part of the plaintiff to estimate his relief and that the estimate should not be a deliberate under-estimation.” While placing reliance on the judgment in Chillakuru Chenchurami Reddy’s (supra-1), the Apex Court observed thus: “In a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after the taking of the accounts. If he cannot estimate the exact amount, he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable. The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately undervalue the relief.” 22. In Abdul Hamid Shamsi Vs. Abdul Majid and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1150 , the Apex Court held thus: “7. It is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined, and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the suit. The plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen, but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard. In such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duty to reject such a valuation. The cases of some of the High Courts which have taken a different view must be held to be incorrectly decided.” 23. In Sujir Keshav Nayak Vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1526 , the Apex Court held thus: “5. … … Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of Kerala Act amply safeguards the interest of revenue. Similar provisions exist in Central Act. But under Code of Civil Procedure plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is undervalued. Sujir Ganesh Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1526 , the Apex Court held thus: “5. … … Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of Kerala Act amply safeguards the interest of revenue. Similar provisions exist in Central Act. But under Code of Civil Procedure plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is undervalued. How to reconcile the two provisions the one leaving it to absolute discretion of Plaintiff to value the suit as he considers proper and the other to reject a plaint if it is undervalued. For this it is necessary to examine the scheme disclosed in the Code of Civil Procedure relating to filing of suit. Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code of Civil Procedure) provides that any suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. What is a court of lowest grade and for what nature of suit has been determined and regulated by State enactments. Competency refers to jurisdiction territorial or pecuniary of limited or unlimited limits. In courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction valuation assumes great importance. A Plaintiff may over or undervalue the suit for purposes of avoiding a court of a particular grade. In the former the plaint may be returned under 0.7 Rule 10 for presentation in proper court but in latter it is liable to be rejected. Since undervaluation goes to the root of maintainability of the suit a Defendant is entitled to raise the objection irrespective of the nature of the suit… …”. 24. Case on hand, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.2 crores, notionally as per his estimate, and 15% comes to Rs.30 lakhs, on which, he paid Court fee of Rs.32,426/-. Though the plaintiff is entitled to value the share as estimated by him, but it should not be as per his whims and fancies. As noticed supra, the suit was filed for rendition of accounts and also for allotment of share of partnership estate in favour of the plaintiff. The partnership estate is an extent of Ac.6.73 cents, consisting of warehouses and weighbridge therein. When immovable property is part of the suit claim, market value certificate plays vital role. Plaintiff is expected to file market value certificate as per Rule 3 of CF Rules. The partnership estate is an extent of Ac.6.73 cents, consisting of warehouses and weighbridge therein. When immovable property is part of the suit claim, market value certificate plays vital role. Plaintiff is expected to file market value certificate as per Rule 3 of CF Rules. However, without filing a market value certificate, the plaintiff filed the plaint and the same was numbered. 25. The market value certificate filed by defendants along with I.A., before filing written statement, would disclose that value of Ac.6.73 cents come to Rs.13,02,92,800/- and 15% of it comes to Rs.1,95,432,920/-. If the suit is to be valued at Rs.1,95,432,920/-, suit must be presented before the District Court, but not before the Court of Senior Civil Judge. When the plaintiff chooses to value the suit, whimsically a ridiculous figure, it is only open to the Court and, also its duty to reject such a valuation. If there is no material or objective standard, the plaintiff”s valuation could be accepted. However, as observed supra, immovable property is involved in the suit and the market value as per the basis register comes to Rs.13,02,92,800/- and 15% of it i.e. plaintiff’s share comes to Rs.1,95,432,920/-. 26. The Court below, despite, placing material before it, failed to consider the same. The Court of Senior Civil Judge is having limited jurisdiction, but not unlimited jurisdiction. As per Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, Senior Civil Judge Court had no jurisdiction if the value of the property involved is more than 50 lakhs. If the suit is valued at Rs.1,95,432,920/-, as per the market value certificate, the Court of Senior Civil Judge lacks jurisdiction. When the court, lakhs jurisdiction and such an issue is raised, the Court should advert to the same before proceedings further. 27. Defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 (2) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that it is undervalued. However, keeping in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, since the suit is filed for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of accounts and, also allotment of share, the order under revision is set aside. According to market value certificate filed by defendants, the 15% share of the plaintiff comes to Rs.1,95,432,920/-. However, keeping in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, since the suit is filed for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of accounts and, also allotment of share, the order under revision is set aside. According to market value certificate filed by defendants, the 15% share of the plaintiff comes to Rs.1,95,432,920/-. Therefore, learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur shall return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC with a direction to the plaintiff to present the same before the appropriate Court by paying differential Court fee. 28. The order of the trial court if it is allowed to continue will result manifest injustice. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Court below shall return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Plaintiff shall present the same before the appropriate Court on paying the difference Court fee. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.