SHANTA BAI Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. SR No.4409 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar at Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-2003 upholding the objection taken by the office relating to the payment of Court fee under Section 34(1) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner submitted that in the plaint, the plaint schedule contains A, B and C schedule properties and the suit O.S. No.484 of 1997, referred to in the plaint, relates to only the plaint-B schedule property. The learned Counsel submitted that the mere pleading that the plaintiff along with Defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit for delivery of possession after evicting the defendants in the said suit, would not in anyway alter the situation as far as payment of Court Fee is concerned, especially in the light of the fact that there is a specific pleading relating to joint possession. The learned Counsel also submitted that even the Court fee issue can be a triable issue and at the appropriate stage, the same can be raised and at any rate such objection cannot be taken at the stage of the numbering of the suit. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on A. Divakrupamani v. A. Sakuntala Devi, 2000 (2) ALD 754 = 2000 (2) ALT 275.

(3.) As can be seen from the impugned order, the office objection in respect of payment of Court fee on the ground that the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties along with the defendants and hence, the Court fee is payable under Section 34(1) of the Act and not under Section 34(2) of the Act, was upheld. As can be seen from the pleading, no doubt the plaintiff in the plaint had pleaded that she along with Defendants 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.484 of 1997 for certain reliefs like delivery of possession and eviction. It is in relation to plaint Schedule-B property. It is pertinent to note that while deciding whether the Court fee is payable under Section 34(1) or 34(2) of the Act in a partition suit the allegations made in the plaint alone may have to be looked into at the stage of the numbering of the plaint. Section 34 of the Act dealing with partition suits reads as follows: