The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the valuation of a suit for the purpose of determining the court fee also governs the pecuniary jurisdiction for filing an appeal. The Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, sustained a registry objection regarding the maintainability of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA), ruling that since the court fee valuation was below ₹50 lakhs, the appeal must be filed before the District Court and not the High Court.
The primary issue before the Court was whether the pecuniary jurisdiction for an appeal is determined by the total market value of the suit property or by the specific valuation used for computing the court fee under the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. In this case, while the property value was stated to be ₹66,66,600, the suit was valued at half that amount (₹33,33,300) for court fee purposes under Section 24(b) of the Act.
Background of the Case
The case originated from O.S.No.25 of 2025 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, filed by Anumula Usha Lakshmi and others (Respondents 1-3) against Valladasi Sri Mounika (the Appellant). The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title, a permanent injunction, and a declaration that a specific settlement deed was null and void.
An interlocutory application (I.A.No.306 of 2025) for a temporary injunction was allowed by the trial court on July 18, 2025. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court via CMA No. 609 of 2025. The High Court Registry raised an objection, stating that since the suit valuation for the relief of declaration was ₹33,33,300, the appeal should lie with the District Court under the Amended Act 26/2018 of the Civil Courts Act, which requires a value exceeding ₹50 lakhs for an appeal to be maintainable in the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions: Sri S. S. Prasad, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, argued that the total value of the subject property (₹66,66,600) should determine jurisdiction. He contended that the valuation for court fee purposes is distinct from the valuation for jurisdictional purposes. Relying on the single-judge decision in Gunna Venkataratnam v. Gunna Kesava Rao (1991), he argued that the entire market value is relevant for determining jurisdiction. He further argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) effectively revived the principles of the Gunna Venkataratnam case, despite it being previously overruled by a Full Bench.
Respondents’ Contentions: Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Kalla Yadagiri v. Kotha Bal Reddy (1998) is settled. They maintained that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the valuation on which the court fee is determined must be taken as the valuation for jurisdiction. Since that value was ₹33,33,300, they argued the appeal was not maintainable in the High Court.
Court’s Analysis
The Court meticulously examined the interplay between Section 50 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 and Section 17 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972.
The Court observed:
“Section 50(1) is explicit in its terms… the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.”
The Bench noted that the decision in Gunna Venkataratnam, which favored the market value approach, was expressly overruled by the Full Bench in Kalla Yadagiri. The Full Bench had held that Section 50 of the 1956 Act is the only provision dealing with the value of a suit for determining jurisdiction.
Addressing the appellant’s reliance on Dev Brat Sharma (2022), the Court clarified that the Supreme Court judgment dealt with money suits under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and did not override the Full Bench’s interpretation of the specific Andhra Pradesh statutes.
The Court stated:
“The valuation for the purpose of the relief which is also for the purpose of court fee shall be taken, as the valuation for the jurisdiction as well… the judgment of the learned single Judge in Gunna Venkataratnam (supra) should be followed, is misconceived.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is ₹33,33,300. As this amount is below the ₹50 lakh threshold required for the High Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction over appeals from Senior Civil Judge courts, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Court ruled:
“We hold that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of the court fee i.e., Rs.33,33,300/-… shall also determine the jurisdiction of the Court… Consequently, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction being less than and not above Rs.50 lakhs, the Office Objection is sustained.”
The Registry was directed to remit the record of the appeal to the Court of the Principal District Judge.
Case Details
- Case Title: Valladasi Sri Mounika @ Sirisha v. Anumula Usha Lakshmi and 9 others
- Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 609 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
- Date: March 17, 2026
