The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.684 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, RR. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and to allot ¼th share to the plaintiff.

2. After service of suit summons, the defendants 2 and 3 filed the written statement denying the plea of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the joint family property. The joint possession and enjoyment claimed by the plaintiff has also been specifically denied contending that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment in their individual capacity as evidenced by the revenue records and in fact some of the lands were already sold to third parties.

3. On the basis of the pleading in the written statement, the defendants 2 and 3 filed I.A.No.90 of 2010 seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay court fee of Rs. 10,08,960/- under Section 34 (1) of The Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') contending that the plaintiff who is not in joint possession of the suit schedule property cannot maintain the suit for partition on payment of fixed court fee under Section 34 (2) of the Act. Though the plaintiff opposed, the Court below by order dated 8.7.2011 allowed I.A.No.90 of 2011 and directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee under Section 34 (1) of the Act on the market value of the property claimed by the plaintiff to her share. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

(i) a District Munisf's Court

(ii) a Subordinate Judge's Court or a District Court

(3) ...

5. A plain reading of the above provision shows that in a suit for partition the Court fees shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff's share if the plaintiff has been excluded from possession of joint family property in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act. However if the plaintiff is in joint possession of the joint family property, sub-section (2) of Section 34 is attracted and a fixed court fees has to be paid at the rates specified therein.

6. Section 34 of the Act which provides for computation of court fee in partition suits reads as under:

"34. 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.

(2) 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-

Rupees Fifty

Rupees One hundred if

the value of the

Plaintiff's share is less

than Rs. 10,000.

Rupees two hundred if

the value is not less

than Rs. 10,000.

7. In the present case, the plaintiff while pleading that she has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, paid the fixed court fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 34 (2) of The Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. However the defendants 2 & 3 disputed the plea of joint possession and enjoyment and contended that the entire suit properties were already partitioned among the defendants whose names were recorded in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deed were also issued to them. Thus it is contended that the defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and that the plaintiff's claim that she has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties along with the defendants is false. It is also the specific case of the defendants that after the marriage of the plaintiff in the y