IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.C.C.A. No.184 of 2009 Between: K. Prabhakar .. Appellant AND Margadarsi Chits Ltd., and others .. Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1843 of 2006 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 29-06-2009. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, Advocate for the 1st respondent, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT: The main appeal itself is heard and is being decided on merits with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1843 of 2006 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 29-06-2009, by which, while decreeing the suit with costs and interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization, the defendant/appellant was permitted to pay the decree debt in monthly instalments at Rs.20,000/- each. The suit is based on the default committed by the appellant subscriber and his guarantors, defendants 2 to 5 in the suit, in paying the chit amount after the appellant became successful bidder and received the prize amount. The appellant questioned the entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit claim on the ground of the chit being unauthorsied and while admitting his liability to a tune of Rs.2,60,000/-, sought for grant of instalments at Rs.10,000/- per month. The trial Court found in the impugned judgment that the plaintiff proved its entitlement to the suit claim as per the chit documents exhibited and proved before the Court by P.W.1 and it further observed that the original monthly subscription itself was Rs.10,000/-, while the suit claim was Rs.4,25,433/- apart from costs and subsequent interest from the date of the suit. Therefore, in the absence of any record filed by the appellant to show the loss in business sustained by him, the trial Court considered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to be a reasonable instalment for discharge of the decree debt by the appellant. The appellant in this appeal was only questioning the fixation of instalment at Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- though heavy losses sustained by the appellant were brought to notice of the Court, which disabled him from paying any higher amount. A preliminary objection was taken by Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the plaintiff/1st respondent about the maintainability of the appeal, as the suit was valued only at Rs.4,23,433/- and as under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, Section 17 provides for an appeal against any decree in a civil suit to District Court only from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, if the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is not more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant answered the said objection by contending that the amount due under the decree including the suit amount and subsequent interest from the date of the suit, was Rs.5,11,901/- by the time of filing of the appeal and it is that value which had to be taken for purposes of jurisdiction also as for payment of Court fee. If so, the appeal is maintainable before High Court under the same provision. The learned counsel referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Satyanarayana Raju v. Kumarayya[1], following which, a Full Bench of this Court decided Kalla Yadagiri v. Kotha Bal Reddy[2]. In the former decision, Their Lordships of the Division Bench with reference to Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and the jurisdiction provision under the Madras Civil Courts Act, held that the value of the subject matter for determining the jurisdiction shall be the same and not different from the value of the subject matter for computing the Court fee with reference to Section 50(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The Full Bench in the latter decision agreed with the said reasoning and disagreed with the contrary view taken by a learned single Judge in another case and specifically observed that the principle is equally applicable to appeals also referred to in Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972. Observing that Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is the only provision dealing with value of any suit for purpose of determining jurisdiction of Courts, the value of appeal being governed by Section 49 of the said Act, the Full Bench, therefore, held that the value for purposes of jurisdiction and the value for purposes of Court fee should be considered to be one and the same. On the strength of the principle so laid down by Their Lordships of the Division Bench and the Full Bench, the maintainability of the appeal, therefore, cannot be in question. While so, the only question involved in this appeal being the reasonable instalment which has to be permitted to the appellant for repayment of the decree debt, the claim of the appellant is that he sustained heavy losses in his business. The fact that the appellant is depending for his livelihood only on the business he runs under the name and style of Prabhakar Enterprises, may not be seriously in dispute and the very circumstances under which he defaulted in repayment of the chit amount, may be suggestive of the probability of his being in financial distress by the time of and even subsequent to the suit, but for which, he would not have subjected himself to further burden of costs and interest in respect of the chit amount inevitably imposed due to the plaintiff approaching the Court with this suit. When he was unable to pay even Rs.10,000/- per month, which was the monthly subscription under the chit, it would be practically difficult for him to pay twice the amount per month in discharge of the debt. While so, it should also be taken into account that a sum of Rs.4,26,128/- is still due under the decree according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff/decree holder even after realization of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 2nd judgment debtor/guarantor. Considering the quantum of the amount due under the decree and the financial difficulties of the appellant and balancing the right of the decree holder to recover the decree debt within a reasonable time and the inability of the appellant to discharge the decree debt in lump sum, fixing a monthly instalment of Rs.15,000/- may be in the interests of justice, in fixing which, of course, an element of guess and estimate are inevitable. The impugned judgment and decree should be modified to that extent. In the result, the judgment and decree, dated 29-06-2009 in O.S. No.1843 of 2006 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are modified only to the extent of fixing the monthly instalment payable by the 1st defendant therein at Rs.15,000/- while otherwise confirming the said judgment and decree in all other respects. In default of payment of any such instalment as fixed hereunder, the decree holder will be at liberty to realize the entire balance in lump sum. The appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-02-2010 Svv [1] AIR 1966 Andhra Pradesh 66 [2] 1999 (1) ALD 222 (FB)