ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who seek to assail the orders in OSSR. No. 3492 of 2003 dated 22-12-2003 on the file of the court of District Judge, Karimnagar District, rejecting the plaint filed under Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 7, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties in three equal parts and allotment of one such share to each of them and delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiffs; recovery of an amount of rs. 40,000-00 from the defendants towards their share of rents on house from the plaint schedule property for one year (i. e. , from 1-11-2002 to 31-10-2003) and directing them to pay court fee under Section 34 (1) of a. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 on the ground that the suit is filed for partition and one-third share in the suit schedule property i. e. , item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property they are not in possession of the joint family properties.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the Revision petitioners contended that the petitioners have made categorical pleadings that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties, and as such, the valuation of the court fee under Section 34 (2) of Andhra pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is correct. The court below ought to have seen that while registering the suit, the court below has not looked into the basic pleadings in the plaint and cannot draw its own inference. The court below has committed illegality in returning the plaint and directing to pay the court fee under section 34 (1) of A. P. Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1956.

( 3 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this court in R. V. Bhuvaneswari and others v. Ponnuboina Chenchu ramaiah (died) andothers.

( 4 ) IN R. V. Bhuvaneswari s case, the plaintiffs therein filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule joint family properties and to allot the shares for which they are entitled by passing a preliminary decree. After numbering the suit, the Office of the senior Civil Judge, Kavali put up a check slip stating that the said suit is for partition of plaint schedule properties and for allotment of shares of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants and also for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 and 7 from making any attempts to raise constructions over any portion of the plaint schedule property. As per the averment in the plaint, defendants 1 to 4 sold some of the plaint schedule properties to Defendant No. 7. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to joint possession and enjoyment of such portion of the schedule property and thus the plaintiffs are liable to pay Court fee under Section 34 (1) of A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. On the office check slip, the learned senior Civil Judge, Kavali, made an order to pay the deficit Court fee by 21-11-2002. Questioning the said order Civil Revision petition is filed. While disposing of the said revi "on, this court held that under sec. 34 (1) of the Act, in a suit for partition, where the plaintiffs are not in possession of any such property of the joint family, the court fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or 3/4ths of the market value of immovable property, excluded in the plaintiff s share. On that analogy, the Court below directed the plaintiffs to pay the court fee under Section 34 (1) of the Act. It is specifically asserted by the plaintiffs that they have not been excluded from the possession of the property sold in favour of the 7th defendant but they are very much in possession of the same. Therefore, sec. 34 (1) has no application. Whereas 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 fami

Click Here to Read the rest of this document