PALLA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. PALLA SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 6 of 2003 in the Court of II Additional District judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, against the respondents, for the relief of partition of suit schedule properties and separate possession of his share. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner was being examined as PW. 1. During the cross-examination, PW. 1 was confronted with a document, dated 29. 06. 1998, which is said to be a partition deed among himself and respondents 1 and 3. The document is marked as Ex. B. 1. Taking the admission of the petitioner, as to execution of Ex. B. 1, the Trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the jointness of the family is disrupted and it cannot be said that the petitioner is in joint possession of the suit schedule property. On that premise, the trial Court required the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee, after giving credit to the fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/ -. An order was passed on 03. 12. 2008, directing the petitioner to pay the balance Court fee of Rs. 44,952/ -. The same is challenged in this revision.

(2.) SRI J. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial court was satisfied about the amount of Court fee to be paid, while registering the suit, and there was no basis for it, in requiring the petitioner to pay the huge amount towards balance of Court fee. Learned counsel contends that the legal character of Ex. B. 1 can be determined only at the trial, and on the basis of mere alleged admission, the trial Court cannot preempt the entire issue. He further contends that the question as to whether there was any prior partition among the parties, would have a bearing on the merits of the suit and the entire consideration has to be relegated to the stage of disposal of the suit.

(3.) SRI M. V. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court took note of an important aspect, touching upon the Court fee and it is always competent for a Court, to insist on the plaintiff in a suit, to pay the deficit Court fee.