HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.C.C.A. Nos.110 & 126 OF 2009 DATED:17-09-2009 C.C.C.A.NO.110 of 2009 BETWEEN: K.Satyamma & Another …Appellants AND Smt.Rukmini & Others …Respondents C.C.C.A.No.126 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt. Rukmini & Others …Appellants AND V.Satyanarayana & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.C.C.A. No.110 & 126 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) It is not in dispute that originally, the suit in O.S.No.954 of 1998 was filed before VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking partition of the suit schedule properties by valuing the suit at Rs.3,33,033/-. On dismissal of the suit on 22.6.2009, C.C.C.A.No.110 of 2009 by the defendants 7 & 8, and C.C.C.A.No.126 of 2009 by the plaintiffs are filed before this Court. It is well settled that the value as stated by the plaintiffs to confer the pecuniary jurisdiction on the trial Court would govern the appeal remedy also. Against any orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, an appeal lies to the District Court wherever the value of the appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs. The value as mentioned in the suit at Rs.3,33,033/- would govern till the termination of the proceedings finally. It is also well settled that the institution of the suit caries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit, and that the right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal (see Garikapati Veeraya v. Subbiah Choudhry AIR 1957 SC 540). Further this Court in an unreported similar matter in A.S.No.63 of 2007, dated 30.6.2009 categorically held that once the rights of the parties have crystallized as on the date of presentation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction including filing of appeal by seeking enhancement of the value of the appeal for whatever reason, the appellant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of High Court on such valuation arrived at, where the appeal lies to the District Court as on the date of presentation of the suit. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Further as seen from the record, no objection was raised as to the pecuniary jurisdiction before the trial Court and no issue was framed in that regard. In view of the same and inasmuch as the suit itself is valued at Rs.3,33,033/-, the present appeals filed by the appellants cannot be maintained and the same lie to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected. Registry is directed to return the bundle to the counsel for the appellants to enable the appellants to present the same before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Tsr.