LexPOLAMRASETTI MANIKYAM & ANR. versus TEEGALA VENKATA RAMAYYA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 1127 POLAMRASETTI MANIKYAM & ANR. v. TEEGALA VENKATA RAMAYYA & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2456-2457 of 2014) FEBRUARY 19, 2014 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] ANDHRA PRADESH COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1956: s.37 - Computation of court fee in a suit for cancellation of sale de.ed - For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction - Held: s.37 contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and there is no reason to substitute the expression "value of the property" used in s. 37 with the expression "market value of the property". In a ~uit for cancellation of a sale deed, the question for consideration before the trial court was whether s. 37 A B c D of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 authorized the valuation of the suit on the basis E of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed or on the basis of the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The Civil Judge took the view that the court fee was to be calculated as per the market value F on the date of presentation of the plaint and not as per the value shown on the document. Consequently, it was held that the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint was returned under 0. 7, r. 10 CPC for presentation ~efore- the proper court. The G view was affirmed by ttte':appellate court as also the single Judge of the High Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court 1127 H 1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 1 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1956, which deals with the suits for cancellation of decrees etc., is not governed by other Sections of the Court Fees Act, such as s. 7 and other related provisions. Ifs. 37 is interpreted in the light of the 8 expression "save as otherwise provided" used in s. 7, it becomes clear that the rule enshrined therein is a clear departure from the one contained in ~- 7 read with ss. 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 42 and 45, which provide for payment of court fee on the market value of the property. In that C context, s. 37 is a stand alone provision, wherein the legislature has designedly not used the expression "market value of the property". Section 37, therefore, contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and there is no reason to substitute the expression "value of the D property" used in s. 37 with the expression "market value of the property". (para 16] (1137-E-H; 1138-A] E Satheedevi v. Prasanna and another 2010 (6) SCR 657 = (2010) 5 sec 622 - relied on. Kolachala Kutumba Sastri v. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma & Ors. AIR 1939 Mad. 462, Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association v. Syed Sarni @ Syed Samiuddin & Ors. (2010) 5 ALT 96, T.S. Rajam Amma/ v. F V.N. Swaminathan & Ors. AIR 1954 Mad.152 - disapproved. Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy 1972 KLT 774, P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. K.C. Hari Menon AIR 1982 Ker 35, Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai 2006 (3) KLT 527 Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran 1964 KLT 895 and G Uma Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad 1966 KLT 1046, Allam Venkateswara Reddy v. Golla Venkatanarayana AIR 1975 AP 122; Venkata Narasimha Raju v. Chaandrayya AIR 1927 Mad 825; Navaraja v. Kaliappa Gounder (1967) 80 Mad LW 19 (SN) and Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu H Pillai (1968) 83 Mad LW 789 - stood approved. POLAMRASETII MANIKYAM v. TEEGALA VENKATA 1129 RAMAYYA 1.2 In the circumstances, the judgment of the High A Court is set aside. Consequently, the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the trial court would stand quashed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and the declaration made by this Court. [para 17] [1138-B-C] B Case Law Reference: AIR 1939 Mad. 462 disapproved para 3 (2010) 5 ALT 96 disapproved para 3 AIR 1954 Mad. 152 disapproved para 5 2010 (6 ) SCR 657 relied on para 8 1972 KLT 774 stood approved para 10 AIR 1982 Ker 35 stood approved para 10 2006 (3) KLT 527 stood approved para 10 1964 KLT 895 stood approved para 10 1966 KLT 1046 stood approved para 10 AIR 1975 AP 122 stood approved para 13 (1967) 80 Mad LW 19 (SN) stood approved para 13 AIR 1927 Mad 825 stood approved para 13 (1968) 83 Mad LW 789 stood approved para 13 CIVIL APP ELL
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.