Andhra High Court
Jaswanth Kour And Anr. vs Rajan Bai And Ors. on 26 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 AP 511, 2004 (4) ALD 780, 2004 (4) ALT 541
Author: D R Elipe
under Section 34(2) of the Act, in a suit for partition where the plaintiffs are seeking partition of suit and separate possession of the joint family properties, and if the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the property, the Court fee payable in respect of the suit for partition, where the value is over and above Rs. 10,000.00 is only Rs. 200/-
However, even if there is any dispute as regards to joint possession, the office of the Court cannot decide whether they are in possession or not, but it is a matter to be decided after trial of the suit only.
let us examine Section 34(1) and (2) of A.P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956.
Section 34 of A.P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 Partition Suits :--(1) In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three fourths of the market value of the immovable property, included in the plaintiff's share.
Section 34(2) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 :--In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property fee shall be paid at the following rates :-
When the plaint is presented to--
(i) a District Munsif Court Rupees fifty
(ii) a Subordinate Judge's Rupees one
Court or a District Court. hundred
If the value of plaintiff's
share in less than
Rs. 10,000-00. Rupees two
hundred if the value is not
less than Rs. 10,000-00.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, it appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision stated supra R.V. Bhuvaneswari and Ors. v. Ponnuboina Chencu Ramaiah (died) and Ors., at para 11 of the plaint therein asserted that all the co-sharers are in joint possession of the property. Therefore, in a partition suit they are entitled to pay Court fee under Section 34(1) of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. As can be seen at para 4 of the pleadings, it is asserted by the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 that they are in joint possession of the suit property till their marriages. Though, the date of marriages of the plaintiffs is not given but it can be understood that upto their marriages they were in joint possession of the suit schedule property and after their marriages, they are not in joint possession of the suit property but they are entitled for share as co-sharer of the joint family properties.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, Prima facie, I am satisfied that the learned District Judge is absolutely right in returning the plaint and ordering to pay Court fee under Section 34(1) of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. In the circumstances, the decision stated supra, R.V. Bhuvaneswari and Ors. v. Ponnuboina Chencu Ramaiah (died) and Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, vis-a-vis, the petitioners in this revision petition are not in possession of the suit schedule Item Nos. 1 and 2 after their marriages.
10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am in full agreement with the conclusion arrived by the learned District Judge, directing the petitioners to pay Court fee under Section 34(1) of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. I do not find any valid and bona fide reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision. The CRP invariably deserves to be dismissed in limini.