SRIPADA SESHAMMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision is as to what is the Court-fee payable on a Memorandum of Appeal filed under section 8 of the Partition Act against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The order of the lower Court is in respect of I.A. Nos. 225 of 1963, 226 of 1963 and 227 of 1963 in O.S. Nos. 61 of 1950. 11 of 1952 and 12 of 1952 respectively in final decree proceedings. In that order, itis mentioned regarding the house, which was item 12 of schedule in the plaint, as follows :

(2.) This Order does not specifically mention that this direction was made as an order under section 2 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893), but it mentions as follows :

(3.) Shri Rajabhushana Rao for the appellants contends that the above portion indicates that there was an oral request for auction by the sharers collectively under section 2 of the Partition Act. This contention is not denied by the learned Government Pleader. For the purpose of these proceedings, I proceed on the basis that the order of the lower Court, to the extent to which it is appealed against, was under section 2 of the Partition Act.