G. Venkata Appa Rao vs P. Sivaramakrishna Prasad

Mr. Gangadhara Rao, J.—The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, for recovery of Rs. 13,631-66. due on the foot of a promissory note dated 19th May, 1970. He valued the suit at Rs. 13,631-66 and paid court fee on that amount. He also claimed interest from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. The suit was decreed for Rs. 13,631-66 together with subsequent interest at 5 1/2 percent annum on Rs. 12.000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by that decree, the defendant has filed this appeal valuing it at Rs. 17,342-94, by including interest from the date of the suit op to the date of the decree and paid court fee on that amount. The High Court office raised on an objection stating that the appeal was not maintainable in the High Court, Since the value of the suit did not exceed Rs. 15,000/-. Reliance was placed on section 17 of the amended Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972. Since the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant did not agree with the objection, the matter was posted before the Court.

It is submitted by Sri P.L.N. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the. interest pendente lite is also the subject matter of the suit, and consequently, the appeal lies to the High Court, Since the appeal was not numbered, notice was not issued to the respondent. So, I requested Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel, to assist the Court.

In order to decide this question, it is necessary to refer to section 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, which reads as follows:-

17 (I) An appeal shall, when it is allowed by law lie from any decree or order in a Civil Suit or proceeding;-

(i) of the District Court, to the High Court;

(ii) of the Court of the Subordinate Judge,

(a) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject - matter of the suit or proceeding is not more than rupees fifteen thousand;

(b) to the High Court, in other cases: and

(iii) of the Court of District Munsif, to the District Court.

In this case, the suit was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge,. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 13,631-66. Therefore, on a plain reading of section 17 (1) (ii) (a) of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, I am of the opinion that the appeal lies to the District Court since the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is not more than rupees fifteen thousand. But it is submitted Sri P. L. Narasimha Sarma, the learned wonset for the appellant by defendant that the interest claimed by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit also forms part of the value of the subject matter of the suit. In this connection, he referred to section 4 Explanation (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, and also the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha and Others, It is true that section 49 explanation (3) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, provides that in claims which include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit, the interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the subject matter of the appeal except where such interest is relinguished. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha and Others, it was observed by the Supreme Court that there was no good reason to make a distinction between the decreed amount of costs and that of pendente lite interest for the purpose of determining the amount of the subject matter in dispute in appeal. It was further observed that it was the value of the right claimed in the suit or appeal which was covered by the expression ''amount or value of subject matter in dispute in Article 1, Schedule I of the Bombay Court fees Act (36 of 1959).

It is true that while filing an appeal, the court fee has to be calculated even on the interest that had accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of the decree by virtue of section 49 of the A.P. Court fees and suit valuation Act, 1956. In fact, that is deemed to be part of the subject matter of the appeal. But, while deciding the question as to what is the forum for prefering the appeal, we should go by the provisions of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972. Section 17 (1) says that an appeal lies to the District Court when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding is not more than rupees fifteen thousand. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the forum to which an appeal lies, we should go by the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit, but not by the subject matter of the appeal. Similarly, the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court that it is the value of the right claimed in the suit or appeal which is covered by the expression amount or value of the subject matter in dispute" in Article, Schedule I of the Bombay Court fees Act, have no beering while interpreting Section 17 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972. In that decision, the Supreme Court was not called upon to consider a provision similar to our Civil Courts Act. They were only interpreting the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Sri T. Veerabhadraiah has placed before me the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Kannayya Chetti vs. Venkata Narasayya (1917) ILR 40 Mad 1(FB) A similar question directly fell in for consideration in that case. The learned Judges were interpreting Section 13 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) which is in para materia of Section 17 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act. The question referred to the Full Bench was whether in suits for accounts instituted in a District Munsif''s Court, an appeal from the final decree which awards more that Rs. 5,000/- lies to the District Court or the High Court. The opinion expressed by the Full Bench is that where a suit for accounts is instituted in a District Munsifs Court, the plaintiff valuing the subject matter of the suit at an amount within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif and a decree is passed for more than Rs. 5,000/- the appeal from that decree lies to the District Court and not to the High Court. In may opinion this decision furnishes a complete answer to the question now raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The above Full Bench decision was followed by Happell, J. in In re Sriramulu Chetty AIR 1945 Mad 1976 Muktadar, J., has also taken a similar view in A.S. No. 799/ 1976 dated 22nd November, 1976. In these circumstances, I held that the objection taken by the office is correct, and the memorandum of appeal shall be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant for presentation to the proper court. Two weeks time is granted to the appellant to present the Memorandum of Appeal to the proper court from the date of its receipt. I express my gratitude to Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, for the assistance rendered to me.