B ANUSHA Vs. B LAXMI KANTH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this CRP, the petitioners are impugning the docket order dated 30-12-2003, passed by District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in O.S. (SR) No.9444 of 2003, returning the plaint and directing the petitioners to pay Court fee under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Court Fee Act').

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that inasmuch as the petitioners have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the properties mentioned in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule, they are liable to pay Court fee as required under Section 34(2) of the Court Fee Act and merely because defendant No.l is living elsewhere on account of strained relations with them, it cannot be said that the properties have lost the joint family property status, and the Court below taking an erroneous view that the properties have lost the joint family property status, directed the petitioners to pay Court fee as required under Section 34(1) of the Court Fee Act, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that for the purpose of determining the Court fee, the averments made in the plaint have to be taken into consideration, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shanta Bai v. Trilok Chand and others, 2004 (1) ALD 643.