SALADI SATYAM ALIAS SATYANARAYANAMMA Vs. SALADI SOMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the District Munsiff of Ramachandrapuram demanding payment of advance court-fee on the value of the plaintiffs share under Section 7, Clause (v) of the Court-fees Act (Act VII of 1870).

(2.) The plaintiff is the widow of one Rama-krishna Rao who died some time after 1-5-1937 after bequeathing under a will of that date all his properties to the plaintiff with absolute rights. It is alleged in the plaint that Ramakrishna Rao was entitled to a l/4th share in the family properties. The averment in the plaint is that Ramakrishna Rao got divided in status in 1932 and was in enjoyment of Ac. 0-76 cents of land which was tentatively put in his possession pending the partition which was complete even till the date of the filing of the plaint. A further averment is made to the effect that the attempts of the defendants to recover possession of these Ac. 0-76 cents of land from the plaintiff by filing O. S. No. 138 of 1949 alleging that the plaintiff trespassed into this piece of land proving futile as that suit was dismissed and A. S. No. 62 of 1951 filed against the decision in that suit also failed. These allegations in the plaint are unqualified, in that her possession as a co-owner of the family properties along with the defendants is asserted. The plaintiff therefore sought to pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 15.00 under Article 17 B of Schedule II of the Court fee Act (Act VII of 1870).

(3.) But in the plaint, the plaintiff goss on also to repudiate such contentions of the defendants as may possibly be raised against her. The plaintiff states that she demanded partition and possession of her l/4th share, but the defendants denied her right and contended that her husband Pamakrishna Rao died undivided with them. The claim of defendants to adverse possession is also denied by the plaintiff. In doing so the plaintiff attempted to forestall the defence to the action. Her object is to expose the defendants in regard to the lame excuses or false defense which the defendants according to her are bent upon putting forth as is evident by their conduct. But the learned District Munsiff has construed this protest by the plaintiff as an acknowledgment by her of the "hostile title" of the defendants and therefore concluded that, the plaintiff cannot he taken to have averred that she is a co-owner along with the defendants. The learned District Munsiff poses the question for his consideration in the following words : "The real test to determine this question is this : Can the plaintiff who admits that her title to the suit properties was denied by the defendants to her knowledge in the year 1947, file a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties, say in the year 1960, i.e., beyond 12 years from the date of the denial of her title and plead constructive possession, for getting over the bar of limitation? and he answers it in the negative.