(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned Order, dt.24.4.2024 passed in C.F.R.No.2556/2024 in (Unnumbered Plaint) on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant status-quo in the C.F.R.No.2556/2024 in the Unnumbered Plaint on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate Interim Stay Order dt. 10-5-2024 -passed in lA No. 1 of 2024 in C.R.P. No. 1050 of 2024in the interests of justice and to pass)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 24.04.2024 passed in CFR No.2556 of 2024 in unnumbered suit /2024 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

2. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

                  The petitioners filed the plaint for declaring them as Legal heirs of Emuka @ Yamuka Usha Rani, being heirs of her husband and for a consequential direction to defendant nos. 3 and 4 to pay the plaint schedule amount and hand over duplicate key to open the locker of the deceased Yamuka Usha Rani. The said plaint was returned vide orders dated 24.04.2024 holding that the same was not properly valued.

3. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Sarala Neelagiri, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

4. Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, in elaboration to the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition would contend that out of the two reliefs claimed in the plaint, the court fee is paid on the second relief as per section 24(d) of APCF & SV Act, however, the trial court even without assessing and mentioning the notional value on which court fee has to be paid, rejected the plaint as per Order-7, Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would further contend that the question of payment of Court fee can be gone into at any stage of the suit after numbering and therefore rejecting the plaint for want of sufficiency of court fee, is unsustainable. He would further contend that if at all the Court finds that court fee is insufficiently paid, it can even direct while passing judgment to pay the deficit court fee, if any, by making the decree inexecutable, till such payment, however, the trial Court, returned the plaint holding that it was valued improperly. He would further contend that the order of the learned trial Judge without considering that the question of deficit court fee can always be decided at any stage erroneously returned the plaint and the said order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in Pottem Ashok Kumar vs. T.Chidambar and others(2019 (4) ALD 273).

5. On the other hand, Ms. Sarala Neelagiri, learned counsel for respondent no.1 would submit that whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher as per section 24(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. She would further contend that it is not open to the court to rush to High Court and file Civil Revision Petition the moment a query is raised, it is the duty of the counsel to answer the query raised and represent the same. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of her contentions, she relied on the decisions in Smt. N.Sulochana vs. The Collector, Hyderabad and another (1968(1) AnWR 296)and M/s. Associated Automotives Sales Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory P.D.Prasad, Prakasam Road, Vijayawada and another vs. R.K.Mahesh (since died) and others(2018(2) ALT 488).

6. Sri Bachina Hanumantharao, learned counsel for respondent no.3 justified the order passed by the learned trial Judge in returning the plaint on the ground that it was valued improperly.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The plaint is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of a female Hindu i.e. the deceased Emuka @ Yamuka Usha Rani, being heirs of her husband Emuka @ Yamuka siva Rao and for a consequential direction to the defendants 3 and 4-Bank and Postal authorities, to pay the plaint schedule amount and handover duplicate key to operate the locker of the deceased Emuka @ Yamuka Usha Rani to the plaintiffs equally. The suit is valued at Rs.36,00,000/- being the amount lying with the bank and postal authorities and court fee is paid under Section 24(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

9. By impugned orders, the plaint was returned holding that the plaint was valued improperly, holding that at best the court can declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased person and basing on that declaration it is for them to claim the amounts which are lying with the bank and that the plaintiffs have to pay court fee by notionally valuing the relief to declare them as legal heirs and if the plaint is valued notionally there is no possibility to bring the plaint before this Court and therefore, the plaintiffs have valued the plaint improperly and in view thereof, the plaint is not maintainable before the Court.

10. In the decision in Pottem Ashok Kumar (supra 1), a Coordinate Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh held thus:

                  “4. Under Section 11(1) (a) of the Act, the court, shall, before registering the suit shall decide, on the allegations contained in the plaint and on the material furnished by the plaintiff, the proper fee payable thereon. Under clause (b) of sub section 1 of Section 11, the decision under clause (a) regarding payment of proper fee, shall be subject to review from time to time as occasion requires. Under Section (2) of 2015(1) ALT 352 (S.B.) Section 11, the defendant is entitled to plead that the suit has not been properly valued or that fee paid is not sufficient and all questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated under Order XVIII of C.P.C. and that if the court decides that the subject matter of the suit is not properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date before which the subject matter of the suit, shall be valued in accordance with the decision of the court and deficit fee shall be paid within the stipulated time.

                  5. In similar facts and circumstances, a learned single judge of this court in PRANIT PROJECTS PVT LTD. Vs. GOUNDRA YADAIAH (3 supra), considering Section 11 of the Act and a catena of decisions on the issue, including a Full Bench decision of this court reported in CHILLAKURU CHENCHURAM REDDY v. KUNUPURU CHENCHURAMI REDDY4, held that at the initial stage of numbering the suit, plaint averments and documents filed in support of plaint, are only decisive to consider the question of sufficiency of court fee paid and the aspect of sufficiency of court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and not possible to reject the plaint straightaway as sought by defendants and the disputed facts raised, require elaborate and roving enquiry, which can be possibly, only during trial. It is further held that the court is not functous officio till pronouncement of judgment to decide on sufficiency of court fee and 1968(2) An.W.R. 616 (F.B.) the court can even direct, while passing judgment, to pay the deficit court fee, if any, by making the decree inexecutable, till such payment.

                  The relevant portion of the order is as under:

                  "6... It is important to note therefrom that irrespective of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1956, particularly sub-section (2), enables defendants to raise a plea regarding the sufficiency of Court Fees, it obligates the Court to consider the plea of the defendants. Here so far as the numbering stage is concerned, on sufficiency of Court Fee as laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court, in Chillakuru Chenchuram Reddy v. Kanupuru Chanchurami reddy {1968(2) An.W.R. 616 (F.B.) = 1968(2) ALT 1 = ILR 1969  AP 1042}, that at the initial stage, the plaint averments and the documents in support of the plaint are only decisive and after appearance, pleadings of the defendants that also to be considered in deciding the sufficiency of Court Fee. In fact the above Full Bench expression equivalent to 1968(3) An.W.R. 616 referring the earlier expression of AIR 1962 AP 90 laid down the principle of the decision of the court fees shall be subject to review from time to time as and when occasion arises till end of trial. It also laid down that rejection of plaint arises if the Court gave a finding on insufficiency of court fees and direction to pay the deficit court fee within the time fixed and even then failed to comply the same.

                  7. The learned Single Judge, in fact considering all these aspects in saying all the disputed facts raised require elaborate and roving enquiry that can be possible only by trial and this aspect of sufficiency of Court Fee is a mixed question of fact and law and not possible to reject the plaint straightaway as sought for by the defendants 22 to 24 apart from the issue to decide may encroach other issues on trail vide decisions support the view are P.Balaraj v. C.J. Yadav {2004(1) An.W.R. 105 = 2004(2) ALD 152 (NOC)}; Valluru S.Prasad v. Alluri K. Naidu {(4) 1998 (4) ALT 384 = 1998(5) ALD 1}; Satyanarayana v. Om Prakash {1989 (3) ALT 629 = 1989(2) APLJ 477}. It is needless to say even within the scope of Section 11 of A.P.Court Fees Act with reference to Full Bench expression and other two Judges Bench expression of Court placed reliance, they were already referred before the trial court and reflected as considered in the order and even those nowhere say the pre trial roving enquiry is required to be conducted by the Court to decide the issue of Court Fee on several disputed questions of fact where it requires elaborate evidence with reference to the documents including by testing in cross- examination under Section 137 of Evidence Act. It is needless to say in this regard that Court is not functous officio till pronouncement of judgment on sufficiency of Court Fee to decide including so to direct while passing judgment, to pay any requirement of deficit court fee by making the decree inexecutable till such payment.Needless to say the time granted for payment of court fee will not give life to the execution and enforcement of the decree nor it suspend the operation of judgment and decree as a consequence for any laches vide AIR 1941 Madras 929 (FB) that was even followed in G.C. Kumar v. Ashok Kumar {AIR 2001 Delhi 338}.

                  8. . . .

                  9. Point No.2:-- Accordingly and in the result the revision is dismissed with no costs. It is made clear that the trial court shall frame specific issue in this regard on sufficient or otherwise of the valuation made in the plaint and the court fee and answer along with other issues and in the final adjudication, if required so to direct for payment of sufficient Court Fees and in such event with direction of till deficient court fee is paid the decree that shall be even drawn up is inexecutable and that no way give additional life against limitation from the date of decree to date of payment of deficit court fees."

                  6. The facts in other decisions of the Apex Court (1 and 2 supra-Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987) 4 SCC 69 & Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (2010 (5) ALD 94 (SC)), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would disclose that these decisions were rendered after suits were numbered, but in the present case, suit was returned before numbering. The Apex Court in Tara Devi's case (1 supra) held as under

                  "4. . . It is now well settled by the decisions of this court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar {AIR 1958 SC 245} and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar {{(1980) 1 SCC 616} that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)( c ) of the Court fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same."

                  7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the above cited decision of this court (3 supra), the impugned endorsement of the trial court dated 06.09.2018 is set aside, and the trial court is directed to number the suit and shall frame a specific issue with regard to sufficiency or otherwise of the valuation made by the plaintiff and court fee paid, and decide the same in accordance with law along with other issues during the trial of the suit.”

11. The above observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court would show that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)( c ) of the Court fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. Further, the trial court can frame specific issue in this regard on sufficient or otherwise of the valuation made in the plaint and the court fee and answer along with other issues and in the final adjudication, if required so to direct for payment of sufficient Court Fees and in such event with direction of till deficient court fee is paid the decree that shall be even drawn up is inexecutable.

12. It is evident from the impugned order that at the best the court can declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased person and based on such a declaration they have to claim the amounts lying with the bank and postal authorities and therefore, the plaintiffs have to notionally value the plaint for the relief of declaration of heirship and if that was done there is no possibility to bring the plaint before the said Court.

13. It is fairly settled that a plaint cannot be rejected entirely just because one of the reliefs is untenable, if other reliefs are valid. Further, prematurely rejecting a plaint without numbering it, particularly on grounds that require examination of merits (like maintainability), is generally discouraged, and the plaint should be numbered first.

14. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 (supra 2) states that whether the subject matter of suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed under section 24(d) of the APCF & SV Act. In the instant case the suit was valued and court fee was paid under Section 24(d) of the APCF & SV Act. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 (supra 3) states that it is not open to a party to rush to High Court the moment a query is raised. In the instant case, the plaint was returned by the Court by passing the impugned orders and therefore, the observations made in the said decision are not applicable to the facts on hand.

15. It is fairly settled that pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the valuation of the suit disclosed in the plaint at the time of its filing (numbering). The court should look at the total value of the subject matter rather than just the potential final relief or the sustainable portion of the claims that might remain after trial. Therefore, the observation of the learned trial Judge that upon notional valuation of the relief to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs, there is no possibility of bringing the suit before that Court is unsustainable.

16. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to number the suit and shall frame a specific issue with regard to sufficiency or otherwise of valuation made and court fee paid by the plaintiffs and decide the same in accordance with law along with other issues during the trial of the Suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.