THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 1128 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the valuation for the purpose of Court fee and the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction can be the same? It appears, the suit filed by the appellant was returned with the following endorsement: “Suit filed for preliminarily dividing the schedule mentioned property into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff; and giving liberty to the plaintiff to apply for a final decree, specifically demarcating and delineating 1/5th share of the plaintiff and defendants, in the schedule mentioned property, and to put the plaintiff in such demarcated shares of the property, if necessary by removing the defendants in occupation of such share of the property; and giving liberty to the plaintiff to apply for a final decree for taking up an enquiry for ascertaining the mesne profits recoverable from the defendants 1 to 3, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of taking possessionof his 1/5th share in the schedule mentioned property; and for costs of the suit. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into 5 equal shares. The total value of the properties is shown as Rs.53,16,472/- and 1/5th share of plaintiff is shown as Rs.10,63,074-40ps. Office took an objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court since share of plaintiff exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is the value of share of plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction but the 3/4th market value on which Court fee is paid that determines the jurisdiction. Therefore it is stated that this Court has got jurisdiction since that value is Rs.7,97,320-80ps. In this connection the learned counsel invited this Court’s attention to a few authorities reported in AIR 1958 SC 245, (2) AIR 1966 AP 66 (DB), (3) 1999 (1) ALD 222 (FB). The Full Bench of our A.P. High Court in 1999 (1) ALD page 222 while dealing with the issue as to whether the provisions of A.P. Cicil Court Act, 1972 override the provisions of A.P. Court Fee Act observed at para 8 of the Judgment “What decided the jurisdiction with regard to a particular case is the nature of the claim as brought”. Their Lordships while dealing 80, at para 8 clearly emphasized that in a suit for partition of joint family property the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the value of the share claimed by plaintiff. Therefore it is clear from the above that for the purpose of jurisdiction of this case, the 1/5th share of the plaintiff claimed alone that decided and not the 3/4th market value as contended by plaintiff. The Division Bench judgment and the Supreme Court judgment stated supra were also referred and considered. Since the value of the share of plaintiff exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, plaint is returned for presentation to proper Court”. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the trend of this Court from the very beginning is to hold that in a suit for partition, the proper method is to value the suit for the purpose of Court fee first and to take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction. Whereas, Court below, while discussing the case law in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar[1] has erroneously held that since the value of the share of the plaintiff exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, plaint is liable to be returned for presentation before the proper Court. Present suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Appellant-plaintiff valued the suit, for the purpose of market value of the schedule mentioned property, at 1/5th share of plaintiff and for the purpose of Court fee, at 3/4th market value of 1/5th share of plaintiff, and accordingly paid the Court fee. The suit was valued as under: “The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.7,97,320-80ps. and a Court fee of Rs.10,426/- is paid under Section 34 (1) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. DETAILS OF VALUATION: a) Market value of the scheduled Mentioned property: …Rs.53,16,472/- b) Market value of 1/5th share of plaintiff: …Rs.10,63,094-40ps. b) 3/4th market value of 1/5th share of the plaintiff: …Rs.7,97,320-80ps. d) Court fee paid …Rs.10,426/-” As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, though the appellant is entitled for 1/5th share of plaint schedule property, market value of which comes to Rs.10,63,094.40ps., as on the date of filing of the suit, for the purpose of Court fee, only 3/4th of the market value of 1/5th share of the plaintiff has to be taken into consideration and the same comes to Rs.7,97,320.80ps. Therefore, Court fee of Rs.10,426/- was paid. This view is further fortified by a decision of this Court in Devabhaktuni Venkata Subbamma v. Chadalavada Rameseshamma and others[2], which reads as under: “This matter comes on an office reference made in regard to valuation of an appeal for purposes of jurisdiction. The appeal sought to be preferred in this Court is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The plaintiff claimed 1/3 share in the suit properties and having been unsuccessful in the trial Court preferred the appeal. He valued the appeal for purposes of Court fee at Rs.5,775 being ¾ of the market value of the 1/3 share belonging to the plaintiff in the suit property under Section 34 of the Andhra Court-fees Act. The total value of the properties is stated to be Rs.23,100 and the market value of the 1/3 share of the plaintiff comes to Rs.7,700. Under Section 34 of the Andhra Court-Fees Act, 1956 (VII of 1956), the computation of the value for Court-fees by the plaintiff should be taken to have been correctly made. But the question that arises is whether the value as given for Court-fees which is ¾ of the market value is the value for purposes of jurisdiction or is the entire market value of the share of the plaintiff that has to be counted for purposes of jurisdiction. Before taking up the question of the value for purposes of jurisdiction, it may be necessary incidentally to refer to section 34 of the Andhra Court-fees Act which governs the suits for partition in so far as the Court-fee is concerned. Sub- section (1) of Section 34, which is relevant, is as follows: “In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the moveable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immoveable property included in the plaintiff’s share”. Inasmuch as the present suit against which the appeal has been filed is for the division of immoveable property, there is no dispute whatsoever that Court-fee shall be computed on ¾ of the market value of the immoveable property. It is necessary to mark here the words underlined for it would be found that in sub-section (1) of section 50 which deals with the jurisdictional value in regard to suits for which ad valorem Court-fee is payable, the same words occur. There we find: “If no specific provision is made in this Act, or in any other law regarding the value of any suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act, shall be the same”. This sub-section affords the necessary guidance for fixing the value for jurisdiction with reference to that value specified in the Court-fees Act for the purpose of computing the fee payable under that Act. Thus, in this sub-section there is no mention of the market-value. Further in contrast with sub-section (2) of section 50, the omission of any reference to the market-value in sub-section (1) leads to the inevitable inference that the basis and mode of valuation for the purposes of sub- sections (1) and (2) is not the same. Sub-section (2) of section 50 states: “In a suit where fee is payable under this Act, at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determination of the jurisdiction of Courts shall be the market value of the moveable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immoveable property or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value the amount stated in the plaint”. Sub-section (2) thus provides for fixing the jurisdictional value, in respect of cases where the Court-fee is payable at a fixed rate, at three- fourths of the market value of the immoveable property (with which alone we are now concerned). There is thus difference in the language used in sub-section (1) and that contained in sub-section (2) and having regard to the different expressions which really provide the criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of Courts in the two separate categories for which the two sub-sections have been enacted, it cannot be said that the language in the two sub-sections means the same thing. This view, according to me, is also strengthened if it is borne in mind that the language is section 34 and that the relevant words in sub-section (1) of section 50 are identically the same. Therefore, they must alone mean the same thing and cannot be taken to comprise the mode of valuation as is specified in sub-section (2) of section 50. in other words, the value that has been specifically mentioned in section 34 and in sub-section (1) of section 50 is that adopted for computing the Court-fee payable under theAct and that is made not only specific but definite by section 34. therefore, the value in the case of immoveable property in a partition suit for purposes of Court-fee shall be that computed at ¾ of the market value. There is thus a distinct difference kept by the framers of the Act that the market value is not identical with the value computed for Court-fees. This distinction cannot be lost sight of; and much more so when in the same section the difference has been kept up by by the use of varying expressions. I am of the opinion that in all cases where ad valorem Court- fee is payable and the value for purposes of computing the Court-fee is variable in accordance with the provisions made in the Court-fees Act, a different value for purposes of jurisdiction depending upon the nature of the suit becomes inevitable, as such seems to be the intention and purpose of the provisions of the Court-fees Act; but where the Court-fee is payable at a fixed rate, the value for jurisdiction has to be at ¾ of the market value in cases of immoveable property (of course perhaps subject to the provisions of section 27 which provides for the contingency where even market-value could not be fixed). Mr. Sambasiva Rao Chowdary, the learned advocate for the appellant, contended that what was meant in cases of immoveable property even by the language of sub-section (1) of section 50 is the taking into account the total market value of immoveable property for purposes of jurisdiction also. He seeks to support this argument with reference to the language in sub-section (2) of section 50, for according to him the mention of market value in sub-section (2) should be taken as indicating the dominant intention of the Legislature to keep in mind only the full market value and that therefore any proportion of that value mentioned for purposes of Court-fee should not be taken as also having been specified for the purpose of jurisdiction. It is indeed rather difficult to follow this reasoning but what he seeks to urge is indeed supported by a decision of Ramaswami, J in Mahaboob Bivi Ammal v. A.M.M. Abdul Hameed and others (1958) 2 M.L.J. 225). There, Ramaswami, Judgment-debtor has been construing sections 28 and 53 of the Madras Court-fees Act, IXV of 1955, the counterparts of sections 27 and 50 of the Andhra Act. The learned Judge was of the opinion that for purposes of valuing suits for computing Court-fees various concessions have been made and he took the case of a trust property dealt with under Section 28 as an instance and somehow felt that since the valuation for purposes of Court-fee therefore differs with the nature of the suit, the market-value, which could be taken to be more steady, or invariable at least for the purposes of that suit, should be the basis for computing the jurisdictional value. But to my mind, for the reasons stated above, it is not possible to construe the language employed in both the sub- sections of section 50 (which corresponds to section 53 of the Madras Act XIV of 1955) as being phrased in the same way or meaning the same thing. Having regard also to the circumstances that the learned Judge has not adverted to the aspect regarding the difference in the language employed in both the sub-sections, I am unable to accept the ratio of that decision as affording guidance for determining this question. In the result, I hold on the facts of this case applying sub-section (1) of section 50 that the value for jurisdiction is also the same value as is given for the purpose of Court-fee under Section 34, and that in this case it is Rs.5,775”. From the above, it is clear, in a suit for partition, the valuation for the purpose of Court fee is the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Appellant-Plaintiff is directed to re-submit the suit within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such resubmission, trial Court shall number the suit and proceed with the matter, as per law. Since the suit is filed in the year 2005, it is desirable that it is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 19-8-2010. MVB. [1] AIR 1958 SC 245 [2] 1959 (2) Anwr 238