MIRZA RAHEEM BAIG Vs. MIRZA MAHAMOOD BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the order dated 17-1-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Rangareddy in O.S.S.R. No. 158 of 2004. By the said order the learned District Judge directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee under Section 34(1) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

(2.) The suit is filed for partition and separate possession and for cancellation of registered gift deeds. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the parties and that after her death, the petitioner, her two other sons and her husband succeeded to the property and their names were also entered in the revenue records as joint pattedars. The plaintiff further contended that since there was no partition and separate possession of the suit property, he is in joint possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit is therefore filed by paying the fixed Court fee under Section 34(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court- Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. But, basing on some entries in the pahani for the years 1995-96 and 2001 and 2002, in which the name of the plaintiff is not shown either as pattedar or as possessor, the Court below held that

(3.) The contention of the revision petitioner is that he is in possession of the suit property and in a suit for partition, the basis for computation of Court fee is the averments in the plaint and not the documents filed by the party and that at the stage of registration of the suit, the Court below is not justified in giving a finding as to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.