Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Right by Birth in Joint Family Property - In Hindu law, individuals acquire joint family status by birth, making the property an adjunct of the joint family regardless of possession at any given time. Possession is not a necessary criterion for establishing joint family rights or property ownership ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204"], ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Pakkir Jyothi - Telangana"].
Court Fee Implications - In partition suits, if the plaintiff is recognized as a coparcener by birth and the property is joint family property, the appropriate court fee is generally payable under Section 34(2) of the Court Fees Act, which involves a fixed fee (e.g., Rs.200). However, if the plaintiff is excluded from possession or claims separate ownership, the court fee should be paid under Section 34(1), based on the market value of the share or property ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204"], ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Pakkir Jyothi - Telangana"], ["Kurapatgi Vimala Kumari VS D. Chandrasekhara Rao - Andhra Pradesh"].
Residing Far from Property - The plaintiff's residence far from the property does not affect the right to claim a share in the joint family property nor the obligation to pay court fees under the appropriate section. The key factor is the status as a coparcener or joint family member by birth, not physical possession or residence ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204"], ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Pakkir Jyothi - Telangana"].
Legal Precedents and Clarifications - Courts have consistently held that joint family status is acquired by birth, and possession is not a prerequisite for establishing rights or for the applicability of Section 34(2). The payment of court fees must correspond to the nature of the claim—joint possession and ownership warrant fixed fees; exclusion or separate ownership necessitate valuation-based fees ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204"], ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Pakkir Jyothi - Telangana"], ["Kurapatgi Vimala Kumari VS D. Chandrasekhara Rao - Andhra Pradesh"].
Conclusion - If the plaintiff has right in the joint family property by birth, they are generally entitled to pay court fees under Section 34(2), regardless of their residence distance from the property. The key is their status as a coparcener or joint family member, not their physical possession or location ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204"], ["Komatireddy Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Pakkir Jyothi - Telangana"].
References:- Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204- Komatireddy Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Pakkir Jyothi - Telangana- Kurapatgi Vimala Kumari VS D. Chandrasekhara Rao - Andhra Pradesh
In Hindu joint family disputes, partition suits are common when coparceners seek their share of ancestral property. But a frequent question arises: If a plaintiff has a right by birth in joint family property, do they need to pay court fee under Section 34(1) of the relevant Court Fees Act in a partition suit if residing far away from the property?
This issue often confuses litigants, especially in states like Andhra Pradesh governed by the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The short answer, based on judicial precedents, is no—residence distance does not dictate the court fee. Instead, it hinges on the plaintiff's claim of joint possession and the nature of their coparcenary right. This post breaks it down with key legal principles, case insights, and practical tips.
Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act distinguishes between two scenarios:
The Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma clarified coparcenary rights by birth for daughters, reinforcing that actual physical possession isn't required for fixed fees if joint possession is asserted. Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204
Courts emphasize pleadings in the plaint: If the plaintiff asserts a share via birth right in joint family property without admitting exclusion, Section 34(2) typically applies. Subhadramma VS Palaksha Reddy - 1974 0 Supreme(AP) 115Jaswanth Kour VS Rajan Bai - 2004 0 Supreme(AP) 378Kanuri Venkata Rangadass VS Kanuri Venkata Krishna Rao - 1981 0 Supreme(AP) 198
No. The law focuses on legal possession, not geography. A plaintiff living far away—perhaps working in another city—retains constructive joint possession as a coparcener if not ousted.
In one ruling, courts noted: the fact of joint possession of the property and a claim for a share in the property by way of partition determines the applicable section for court fee. Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204 The Vineeta Sharma principle was invoked, stating it's not necessary for the plaintiff to be in actual possession of the suit property in order to pay fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 34(2). Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204
Supporting cases affirm this:- Even if plaintiffs are not in joint possession, claims of birth rights lead to fixed fees unless exclusion is proven. S. Ramachari VS Trishala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 257 It also raised a contention that the Court Fee paid is insufficient since plaintiffs are not in joint possession and that they should pay Court Fee under Section 34(1)...- In partition suits, possession of one is in law possession of all for co-owners, presuming joint possession even without actual occupancy. Krishan Kumar Mehra VS Roop Lall Mehra - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1326 In suit for partition, Court fee to be paid if joint possession is pleaded by the plaintiff on the basis that he is co-owner... is fixed court fee... presuming joint possession of plaintiff even if plaintiff is not in actual possession.
Residence alone doesn't negate joint possession claims. Subhadramma VS Palaksha Reddy - 1974 0 Supreme(AP) 115
Under Hindu law, coparceners acquire rights by birth in ancestral (joint family) property. This includes sons, daughters (post-2005 amendment), and descendants. No physical presence is needed; the right is inherent.
Courts hold: By substituted section 6 with effect from 9.9.2005 daughters are recognised as coparceners in their rights, by birth in the family like a son. Bhogaraju Lakshminarayana Murthy vs K. Vijayalakshmi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16824 This empowers claims without demanding proof of residence or possession at filing.
The plaint's averments control. Assert right by birth in joint family property and joint possession/enjoyment to invoke Section 34(2). Distance is irrelevant if no exclusion is alleged.
Example: Plaintiffs alleged that Plaint 'A' to 'C' Schedule properties are ancestral... they are not yet partitioned... and were in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3. S. Ramachari VS Trishala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 257
If defendants argue exclusion (e.g., via alienation), they bear the burden, but initial fee is based on plaint. Kurapatgi Vimala Kumari vs D.Chandrasekhara Rao - 2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 327 Appropriate court fee was not paid as per Section 34(1) as exclusive possession was not claimed.
Fixed fees aren't automatic. Exceptions include:- Explicit exclusion claim: If plaint admits ouster, ad valorem fee required. Subhadramma VS Palaksha Reddy - 1974 0 Supreme(AP) 115- Evidence of dispossession: Defendants proving alienation or sole possession may force revaluation. C. Sudha vs B. Narsi Reddy - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 33346 The office of the trial Court has taken objection that Court Fee should be paid under Section 34(1)... on the ground that the suit schedule property was alienated...- Self-acquired property disputes: If property isn't joint, partition fails, but fee issues persist. Kurapatgi Vimala Kumari vs D.Chandrasekhara Rao - 2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 327 The trial court established the property was self-acquired... Appropriate court fee was not paid as per Section 34(1).
In such cases: if plaintiff is excluded from possession then the court fee had to be payable under... Kurapatgi Vimala Kumari vs D.Chandrasekhara Rao - 2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 327
These reinforce that residence doesn't override birth rights or joint possession pleas.
To minimize fees and risks:- Draft Plaint Carefully: Clearly state right by birth as coparcener and joint possession with defendants. Avoid exclusion hints.- Pay Fixed Fee Initially: Rs. 200 under Section 34(2) if joint claim.- Anticipate Objections: Defendants may push for 34(1); counter with precedents like Vineeta Sharma.- Evidence Joint Nucleus: Prove ancestral origin to support partition.- Seek Legal Help: File in proper jurisdiction; delays can complicate. S. Ramachari VS Trishala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 257
In summary, a plaintiff's distant residence doesn't mandate Section 34(1) fees in partition suits claiming birth rights in joint family property. Courts prioritize joint possession assertions over physical proximity, allowing fixed fees under Section 34(2) generally. Komatireddy Venkat Reddy VS Pakkir Jyothi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 204Subhadramma VS Palaksha Reddy - 1974 0 Supreme(AP) 115
Key Takeaways:- Birth right + joint possession claim = Fixed court fee.- Residence distance is irrelevant.- Pleadings matter most; exclusion changes everything.
Stay informed on Hindu succession laws to protect your shares. For tailored advice, contact a local advocate specializing in family property disputes.
#PartitionSuit, #CourtFee, #JointFamilyProperty
record as possessor at any point of time, therefore, the Court fee ought to have been paid under Section 34 (2) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act but under Section 34 (1) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. ... These defendants deny that the p....
record as possessor at any point of time, therefore, the Court fee ought to have been paid under Section 34 (2) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act but under Section 34 (1) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. ... These defendants deny that the p....
(A) Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - Section 34(1) - Suit for partition - The trial ... Pandu Ranga Reddy 2012 (1) ALD 302 (AP) it was stated that if plaintiff is excluded from possession then the court fee had to be payable under Section 34(1) and it is incorrect to pay a f....
It also raised a contention that the Court Fee paid is insufficient since plaintiffs are not in joint possession and that they should pay Court Fee under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. ... Counsel for the appellants also pleaded that the....
The Trial Court observed that even several years after partition under Ex.B7, the changes were not affected, and there was no severance in status and so suit for declaration of their 1/5th joint share by paying Court Fee on 3/4th market value under Section 34 (1) of A.P. ... The plaint schedule properties are the pla....
34(1) as exclusive possession was not claimed - The appeal allowed, restoring trial court's judgment dismissing the suit. ... - The trial court established the property was self-acquired by the first defendant - Appropriate court fee was not paid as per Section ... A.Pandu Ranga Reddy8 it was stated that if plaintiff is excluded from possession then the court fee had to be payable under ....
of the AP Court Fees Act , despite not being in possession of the property, instead of paying court fee under Section 34(1) thereof. ... By substituted section 6 with effect from 9.9.2005 daughters are recognised as coparceners in their rights, by birth in the family like a son. Coparcenary is the creation of law. On....
is barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC; that if the plaintiff has to pay the court fee under Section 34 (1) of A.P. ... plaintiff, plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 colluded with other family members and made attempts to alienate the plaint schedule property; that plaintiff#....
The office of the trial Court has taken objection that Court Fee should be paid under Section 34(1) of the Act but not under Section 34(2), on the ground that the suit schedule property was alienated to defendant Nos.4 to 42 and it is not in possession of joint family members i.e.,....
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and paid the proper Court fee under Section 34(2). In spite of this defect, the trial court erroneously decreed the suit without proper valuation and payment of court fee. ... it was joint family property. ... However, without proper appreciation ....
The plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree in his favor. It is settled law that in case of co-owners, possession of one is in law possession of all. In suit for partition, Court fee to be paid if joint possession is pleaded by the plaintiff on the basis that he is co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned, is fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) of schedule II of Court fee Act presuming joint possession of plaintiff even if plaintiff is not in actual possession.....
The learned counsel mainly concentrated on the words used i.e., ‘a plaintiff’ and ‘plaintiffs’ as emphasized and contended that it is individual and single plaintiff’s share has to be taken into consideration. The using of the word “plaintiff’s share” indicates that it is the plaintiff’s individual share which is the subject matter for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court fee. Even under Section 35(2) of the KCF & SV Act, in a suit for partition and separate possession of a join....
The Plaintiff was required to file suit for declaration that the said properties belong to joint family property and also was required to pay advelorum court fee on the said property but without mentioning in detail, the Plaintiff filed simple suit for partition. There is No. whisper about which properties stands in the name of Defendant No.
7. Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955 reads as follows: "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:-
8. 2 A learned single Judge of this Court in B. Shabeer Ahmed v. B. Iqbal Ahmed, 1965 (2) Mys LJ 431. 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:. . . . . . . Rupees two hundred, if the value is Rs. 10,000 and above.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
