HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.No.2855 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.230 of 1999, dated 15.02.2000, whereunder the suit was dismissed on the ground that the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs is not correct while considering I.A.No.2048 of 1999 to determine the valuation as a preliminary issue as to the payment of the court fee. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the property based on title. The suit was already part heard and it was made over from the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur to the I Additional District Judge, Guntur for expeditious disposal. It appears, at the stage when the matter was part heard, I.A.No.2048 of 1999 was filed by some of the defendants contending that the valuation of the property is Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, whereas the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is only Rs.1,00,000/- and there is no proper proof or certificate to prove the valuation and, therefore, the suit is not properly valued and is to be rejected. The learned I Additional District Judge, accepting the contention of the defendants allowed the application and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. It is no doubt true, as held by the learned I Additional District Judge, it is mandatory that when a suit is filed, the valuation certificate issued by the registering authority showing the market value has to be filed along with the plaint that is only the evidence that has to be taken into consideration at the time of registration of the suit. However, if the defendants subsequently dispute the valuation, it can be done only by adducing the evidence and that can be determined by the Court. Now, the law is well settled that if the market valuation is lesser or higher for determination of the court fee, it is the market value certificate issued by the registering authority that has to be taken into consideration for payment of the court fee. Evidently, the defendants, having taken a plea of the valuation of the property being not proper, did not adduce any evidence and did not go into the box. In fact, if the court wanted to decide the issue of improper valuation of the plaint, then it should have ordered the parties to produce the evidence to determine the same. Even otherwise, when the suit is to be determined for payment of the deficit court fee or not valuing the suit properly, an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to produce the necessary documents or for payment of the necessary court fee but when the matter was pending for more than a decade and when the parties have adduced evidence, at that stage, on the ground of preliminary issue to non-suit the plaintiff, is not well in the interests of the justice. But, however, apart from the above fact, the facts to be considered is whether really the plaintiff has not filed the market value certificate as required under law and it did not accompany the plaint. The learned District Judge has opined that the market value certificate in fact was filed as Annexure No.1, which is marked as Ex.A.1 and in fact, it shows the market value of the land in D.No.426 @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The learned Senior District Judge found that the land, which was noted in the certificate, does not describe the nature of the land. So far as the valuation is concerned, the certificate value per acre has to be considered as per the market value register maintained by the Registrar and the failure to mention whether it is a house site or a dry land or a wet land is irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the market value. Therefore, on that ground, the market value certificate cannot be discarded. Furthermore, the document, which is filed along with the plaint, shows that there is a signature of the registering Officer and also the seal of the office. If the defendants are to dispute the same, as being not true, they should summon the original market value certificate or summon the person who gave the certificate. In fact, as can be seen from the plaint when it was checked, an endorsement was made by the office to the effect that original market value certificate is to be filed. As per the market value certificate in Annexure No.2, in addition to the valuation certificate as required to be obtained and filed, as can be seen from the return endorsement dated 07.05.1987, the matter was re-presented and a certificate was said to have been filed and thereafter as can be seen from the office note of the checking Officer dated 08.06.1988 valuation slip in proof of valuation certificate of registering Officer was filed. Thereafter, the Court applied its mind and accepted the valuation and ordered registration of the suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no proof of market value filed by the plaintiff and any doubt expressed by the District Judge could be proved only by a positive evidence adduced by the defendants and when the Court at the earlier point of time has accepted the valuation certificate and at a later point of time rejecting it as not being valid will not meet the ends of justice. Therefore, it is quite clear that the learned District Judge has erred in dismissing the suit holding that the valuation is not proper and from the available material on record, it is quite clear that there was a proper presentation of the plaint along with the property certificate of market value. If at all the defendants ought to adduce any evidence the defendants are at liberty to produce the same and the Court shall decide the same along with the other issues and dismissal of the suit is bad. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order under appeal and the matter is remanded to the lower Court for continuation of the trial from the stage where it has been stopped consequent on the dismissal of the suit. The lower Court shall expeditiously try to dispose of the suit within a period of six months, since it is sufficiently old. Registry is directed to send the record immediately along with the order to the lower Court. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31st January, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) PNV