HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 DATED:30.04.2010 Between: Potta (sunnam) Vindhyarani and two others …Appellants And Potta (Sunnam) Jaganadham and three others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao,J) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 Read with Section 104 of CPC is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.2009 passed by the District Judge, Nalgonda returning the plaint in O.S. (SR) No.7470 of 2009 for presentation before the proper Court having jurisdiction to try the same. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The brief facts of the case necessary for consideration in this appeal may be stated as follows: According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the first respondent gifted Ac.3.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.193/AA situated at Hussainbad village, Bhongir mandal in favour of his younger brother, Laxminarayana who is no other than the husband of the first appellant under a registered gift deed, dated 24.11.1982. The gift deed was acted upon and Laxminarayana was put in possession of the schedule mentioned property. Subsequently, the appellants came to know that the first respondent cancelled the gift deed, dated 24.11.1982 by executing a cancellation document, dated 17.12.1985 and thereafter, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhongir for rectification of entries in the revenue records and to enter his name as pattedar by deleting the name of Laxminarayana. Subsequently, there was litigation before the revenue authorities and ultimately the parties were directed to approach a competent civil Court for adjudication of their rights. Thereafter, the respondents created agreements of sale-cum-general power of attorneys, dated 19.11.2009 with a view to sell away the properties to third parties. Having come to know about the said fact, the appellants filed the present suit for declaration of their title and also to declare the agreements of sale-cum-GPAs. as null and void. They valued the relief of declaration at Rs.75,000/- being half of the market value of the suit property and paid court fee under Section 24 (b) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short ‘the Act’). They valued the relief to declare agreements of sale-cum-G.P.As. as null and void notionally at Rs.10,50,000/- and undertook to pay separate court fee under Section 24(b) of the Act. 4. The learned trial Court by the impugned order, dated 31.12.2009 returned the plaint on the ground that cancellation of agreements of sale-cum-G.P.As. is only ancillary relief to the declaration of title which is main relief and for the ancillary relief, no separate court fee need be paid, and holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The said order is challenged in this appeal. 5. Perusal of the plaint indicates that the appellants- plaintiffs sought to declare the agreements of sale-cum- G.P.As. as null and void as one of the main reliefs and they did not state in the plaint that it is a consequential relief. The appellants are prepared to pay court fee on the relief sought to declare the agreements of sale-cum- G.P.As. as null and void by valuing the said relief at Rs.10,50,000/-which is within the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. In the event of the plaintiffs reiterating that they sought the above mentioned relief as one of the main reliefs and agreeing to pay the court fee on Rs.10,50,000/-, the learned trial Court is not supposed to return the plaint on the ground that it is only ancillary reliefs and no court fee need be paid separately. Therefore, considering the relief which was sought to declare the agreements of sale-cum-G.P.As. as null and void as main relief, we hold that the leaned District Judge, Nalgonda has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge returning the plaint is set aside and the learned District Judge is directed to register the suit. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:30.04.2010 Ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1 of 2010 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Kantha Rao,J) DATE:30.04.2010