C. Sudha vs B. Narsi Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 2452 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2452 Tel
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

C. Sudha vs B. Narsi Reddy on 28 June, 2024

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1930 of 2024

ORDER:

This revision is directed against the order dated

02.04.2024, directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay Court Fee

under Section 34(1) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act,

1956 (for short, the 'Act').

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner. None

appeared for respondents.

3. The Original Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for

partition and separate possession of her share. Along with

the suit, she has paid a fixed Court Fee of Rs.200/- under

Section 34(2) of the Act. The office of the trial Court has

taken objection that Court Fee should be paid under Section

34(1) of the Act but not under Section 34(2), on the ground

that the suit schedule property was alienated to defendant

Nos.4 to 42 and it is not in possession of joint family

members i.e., plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. The

contention of the petitioner is that the suit schedule land is

undivided Hindu joint family property and that plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in joint possession of the same

being coparceners, therefore, a fixed Court Fee of Rs.200/- is

sufficient under Section 34(2) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the

judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

the case of R.V.Bhuvaneswari and others v. Ponnuboina

Chencu Ramaiah (died) and others 1, wherein, it is held as

follows:

6. Under Section 34(2), in a suit for partition where the plaintiffs are seeking partition of suit and separate possession of the joint family properties, and if the plaintiffs are in joint possession of such property, the Court fee payable in respect of the suit for partition, where the value is over and above Rs.10,000/-, is only Rs.200/-. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have asserted that they are in joint possession of the properties sold by the Defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the 7th defendant. Therefore, the Court fee payable by them is only Rs.200/-, which was already paid. However, even if there is any dispute as regards to joint possession, the office of the Court cannot decide whether they are in possession or not, but it is a matter to be decided after trial of the suit only.

5. Admittedly, the present suit is also for partition of joint

family properties. In view of the aforesaid judgment, a fixed

2004 (1) ALD 539

Court Fee of Rs.200/- in terms of Section 34(2) of the Act is

sufficient.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed

setting aside the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the

Principal District Judge, Narayanpet in O.S.No....... of 2024

(C.F.R.No.66 of 2024). The trial Court is directed to number

the suit, take it on board and proceed with the trial in

accordance with law. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand