VHA SUBBA RAO Vs. VHA VEERARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two pltfs are the petnrs. Pltf 1 is the husband of pltf 2. The deft is a son of a brother of pltf 1. Early in Jan 1944 pltf 1 sent a notice to the deft telling him that he intended to become divided in status. After having thus effected a disruption in status, pltf 1 executed on 10-1-1944 a gift deed of his immovable assets in favour of pltf 2. The pltfs continued to live as previously in a portion of the family house. Thereafter they brought a suit for partition of the assets of the family and also for accounts. A sum of Rs. 100 (one hundred) was paid as court-fee in respect of the claim for partition under Article 17 B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act.

(2.) The objection was taken that the court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Subordinate Judge went into the question and required the pltffs to pay 'advalorem' Court-fee. They have therefore come to this Ct.

(3.) One item in respect of which 'ad valorem' court-fee was insisted on, is the house in a part of which the pltfs live. Now, under Section 7 Clause (V), Court- fees Act which is the one which the Subordinate Judge held to be applicable, 'ad- valorem' fees need be paid only if the pltfs sue for possession--but their allegation is that they are already in possession. That being so, I find it difficult to see how they can be required to sue for possession or said to be suing for possession of the properties.