MARATI JAMUNA BAI Vs. JUNUTHULA JANARDHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek rejection of the plaint on the following grounds :

(2.) The above two Interlocutory Applications are filed for rejection of plaint before the trial Court on the ground that proper Court fee has not paid under Sec. 34 (1) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act. Thus, after considering the arguments of both sides, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee under Sec. 34 (1) of the A.P. Court Fees and suits Valuation Act within a week from the date of order, failing which plaint stands rejected.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the two C.R.Ps are filed by the petitioner stating that the Court failed to appreciate that the co-owners are all deemed to be in joint possession. Payment of Court fee for a suit for partition is a mixed question of fact and law and has to be decided after the completion of trial. In the plaint they specifically pleaded that they are in joint possession. They also stated that sale itself is not valid and not binding on them. The title was never transferred but the trial Court without considering the same wrongly interpreted the provisions and came to conclusion resulting in miscarriage of justice.