Court Fees — Partition Suit — Joint Possession — Exclusion — Pleadings — Determination based solely on plaint averments — Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, S.37(1), S.37(2).
Held:
Court fee payable in a suit must be determined solely with reference to the averments in the plaint as a whole, and not on the basis of the written statement or the eventual findings on merits.
(Paras 10–11, 26)In a partition suit, mere averment that the plaintiff was not paid income or could not ‘remain in joint possession’ does not amount to a clear plea of exclusion from possession.
(Paras 12–14, 27–28)Where the plaint consistently asserts joint possession, valuation under S.37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is proper; S.37(1) applies only where there is a clear and specific averment of exclusion.
(Paras 15–18, 29–31)In law, possession of one co-owner is possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is specifically pleaded and established; actual physical possession or receipt of income is not determinative.
(Paras 30–32)Daughters succeeding to coparcenary interest under proviso to S.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are entitled to claim partition while being deemed in joint possession in the absence of exclusion.
(Paras 33–34)
Appeal allowed. Direction to pay court fee under S.37(1) set aside; valuation under S.37(2) restored.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Governing Principle for Court Fee Determination
The Supreme Court reiterates the settled rule that court fee must be assessed strictly on plaint allegations, read as a whole, and cannot be influenced by:
the defence version, or
findings after trial.
This principle, reaffirmed from S. Rm. Ar. S. Sathappa Chettiar, is applied decisively (Paras 10–11, 26).
B. Scope and Interpretation of Section 37
S.37(1) applies only when the plaintiff pleads exclusion from possession.
S.37(2) governs cases where the plaintiff asserts joint possession, even if not in actual enjoyment.
The Court draws a sharp distinction between:
non-receipt of income / non-enjoyment, and
legal exclusion or ouster.
Absence of income ≠ exclusion (Paras 27–31).
C. Meaning of “Joint Possession” in Law
The Court emphasizes classical co-ownership doctrine:
Physical possession is unnecessary.
Receipt of income is unnecessary.
Legal entitlement and absence of ouster are sufficient.
Unless a clear and specific averment of exclusion appears in the plaint, the presumption of joint possession continues (Paras 30–32).
D. Error of the High Court
The High Court erred by:
Isolating one sentence (“could not remain in joint possession”) from Para 12,
Treating it as an admission of dispossession,
Ignoring repeated assertions of joint possession in other paragraphs.
The Supreme Court holds that paragraphs must be read harmoniously, not selectively (Paras 12–18).
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The plaint consistently pleaded:
Joint family property,
Succession as daughters,
Joint possession,
Demand for partition to convert joint possession into separate possession.
The statement that plaintiffs were not paid income was held to be at best a grievance of management, not exclusion.
Even the written statement acknowledged that the suit was framed on joint possession, disputing it only by way of defence — reinforcing that no admission of exclusion existed in the plaint itself.
The Trial Court’s reliance on evidence of non-enjoyment was legally irrelevant for court-fee determination.
LEGAL POSITION EMERGING
Partition suits must be valued under S.37(2) unless exclusion is expressly pleaded.
Courts must resist post-trial reasoning to re-characterize plaint averments for court-fee purposes.
Non-receipt of income or non-occupation does not equal dispossession.
