- (1.)THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 684 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the I - Addl. District Judge, R. R. District at L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and to allot _¼th share to the plaintiff.
(2.)AFTER service of suit summons, the defendants 2 and 3 filed the written statement denying the plea of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the joint family property. The joint possession and enjoyment claimed by the plaintiff has also been specifically denied contending that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment in their individual capacity as evidenced by the revenue records and in fact some of the lands were already sold to third parties.
On the basis of the pleading in the written statement, the defendants 2 and 3 filed I. A. No. 90 of 2010 seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay court fee of Rs. 10,08,960/- under S.34(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') contending that the plaintiff who is not in joint possession of the suit schedule property cannot maintain the suit for partition on payment of fixed court fee under S.34 (2) of the Act. Though the plaintiff opposed, the Court below by order dated 8-7-2011 allowed I. A. No. 90 of 2011 and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee under S.34(1) of the Act on the market value of the property claimed by the plaintiff to her share. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff.

(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.