THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3812 of 2009 Dated:21.08.2009 Between: Karumuri Viswanadham. …Petitioner and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3812 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner presented plaint, being O.S (SR) No.2811 of 2009, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. The suit filed by him against the two defendants is for the following reliefs. (a) To declare that either the 1st defendant or 2nd defendant have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the plaint schedule house property and for the consequential permanent injunction restraining both the defendants from either trespassing into the plaint schedule house property or from dispossessing plaintiff by force from the plaint schedule house property or in any way interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule house property; (b) To grant costs of this suit against the defendants; (c) To grant such other reliefs against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff under the facts and circumstances of the case and to pass a decree accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants; The plaint property referred to in the above prayer is as follows. PLAINT SCHEDULE FILED BY PLAINTIFF West Godavari District, Palakol Revenue Mandal, 5th Ward, Rangamannarpeta, Terraced building bearing Door No.15-1- 12, in an extent of 62 square yards within the following boundaries: East: Daba house that fell to the share of 1st defendant South: Hospital of Gamarru Doctor West: Municipal Road North: House of Karanam Apparao The plaintiff paid Rs.7026/- as Court fees. The same was calculated on half of the total value of the plaint schedule property, which according to the plaintiff is Rs.4,59,000/- (total value appears to be Rs.9,18,000/-). The plaint was rejected by the Court with two objections, that two more copies of plaint schedule to be filed, and that Court fee should be paid separately on each relief. The Counsel represented the plaint and mentioned that the value of the plaint property is Rs.9,18,000/-, and Court fee is paid on half of the same. Plaint was again returned on 24.06.2009. Counsel represented on 25.06.2009 again reiterating the same. The Court then returned the plaint observing that the Court fee should be paid on the amount shown in the plaint separately. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Paragraph 27 of the plaint deals with value of the suit and reads as under. VALUE OF SUIT: For declaration that either the 1st defendant or the 2nd defendant has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the plaint schedule house property and for the consequential permanent injunction restraining both the defendants from either trespassing into the plaint schedule house property or from dispossessing plaintiff by force from the plaint schedule house property or from in any way interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule house property. Under Sec.24(b) of A.P.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, half of the market value of the plaint schedule house property being Rs.4,59,000/- (Half of Rs.3,06,000/- + Rs.3,06,000/- + Rs.3,06,000/-) = Rs.4,59,000=00, on which a Court fee of Rs.7026=00 is paid under Article I(b) and (c) of Schedule I of A.P.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The said amount is the value of the suit for purposes of Court Fees as well as jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the Court fees paid on half of the value of the plaint schedule property, which is only one item, is correct. However, due to inexplicable reasons, the highlighted portion in the value paragraph created some confusion. Entire reading of the plaint nowhere refers to any such a thing that plaint schedule property bearing No.15-1-12 in an extent of 60 square yards is in three portions or three houses. It is physically one house in respect of which declaration is sought. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the Court fee paid is correct. The lower Court is directed to register the suit and proceed further in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.08.2009 Note: The original documents presented with the Civil Revision Petition may be returned on condition of substituting them by Xerox copies. B/o. vs