Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D. Lakshmanna vs Padmavathi on 23 September, 2025
APHC010439212025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Tuesday, the twenty third day of September two thousand and twenty five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
Civil Revision Petition No: 1947 of 2025
Between:
D. Lakshmanna and others ...Petitioner
Petitioners
and
Padmavathi and others ...Respondents
Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner:
etitioner:
1. Vivekananda Virupaksha
Counsel for the respondent
espondents:
G. Sravan Kumar
The Court made the following:
2
C.R.P.No.1947 of 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.07.2025 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.51 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, filed by the defendants Nos.2 and 3 under Order XIV, Rule 5 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to frame additional issues.
02. The revision petitioners are the petitioners / defendants Nos.2 & 3, the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the defendants Nos.1 and 4 in the suit.
03. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of four items of properties of the plaint schedule and to allot 1/3rd share of it to the plaintiff and also to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No.2677 of 2005, Sub-registration Office, Dhone, dated 20.09.2005 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and further to declare that the registered partition deed bearing document No.2072 of 2019 as null and void.
04. Pending the suit, I.A.No.51 of 2025 was filed stating that the plaintiff cannot seek declaration of the partition deed as void without seeking relief of cancellation of the partition deed by paying separate Court fee and therefore, a separate issue regarding maintainability of the suit is required to be framed in addition to issue of non-payment of Court fee for declaration of invalidity of the partition deed. In this regard, the following two issues were sought to be framed:
i. Whether the suit for declaration of invalidity of partition deed bearing No.2072/2019 dated 08.05.2019 is maintainable without seeking its cancellation as plaintiff is party to it?3 C.R.P.No.1947 of 2025
ii. Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay Court fee for seeking relief of declaration of invalidity of partition deed 2072/2019 dated 08.05.2019.
05. The petition was opposed by filing a counter of the respondent No.1 mainly stating that there is no need for paying court fee as sought by the petitioners since the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and the petitioners sold the properties to the defendant No.4 without consent of the plaintiff and thereby, such sale deed is null and void. It is further stated that the plaintiff had already paid Rs.200/- towards court fee under Section 34(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act (for short, 'the C.F.Act'). She further stated that the partition deed is null and void as it was executed by the plaintiff without her consent i.e. signed by her unaware of it, and as such there is no need to pay court fee for cancellation of the partition deed, because the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and the court fee already paid is sufficient. Therefore, the respondent No.1 contended that the petition was filed only to drag on the case at the stage of cross- examination of P.W.1 and there is no merit in the petition.
06. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 / co-defendants have not chosen to file counter.
07. After hearing both the contesting parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.500/- payable by the petitioner to the District Court Accessibility Committee, Kurnool by 10.07.2025.
08. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed and reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others 1, wherein a distinction was made in the matter of claiming relief of declaration by a party to the instrument and by a non-party stranger. It is further 1 (2010) 12 SCC 112 4 C.R.P.No.1947 of 2025 contended that in addition to the fixed court fee already paid, the nature of relief of declaration needs to be separately valued and corresponding court fee shall be paid.
09. It is also contended that under Section 11 of the C.F.Act, any defendant may plead that the suit is not properly valued and all questions arising out of such pleas shall be heard and decided before hearing of the suit.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the issues already framed would deal only with the entitlement for declaratory relief sought by the plaintiff and also the correctness of the court fee paid under Section 34(2) of the C.F.Act, whereas the petitioner seeks specific issue on the maintainability of the suit for declaration without asking for cancellation of the partition deed to which the plaintiff is a party, since a party to a document has to seek cancellation of the document and cannot ask mere declaration like a third party to a document. He further submitted that there must be a specific issue as to whether the plaintiff is required to pay separate court fee on the relief of declaration, whereas the issue already framed does not cover and therefore, the proposed issue No.2 would squarely cover the pleading taken by the defendant in the written statement with more clarity as the plaintiff is required to pay separate court fee and it is not adequate to pay fixed court fee.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff supported the order of the trial Court as the issues are broader enough to cover the aspects raised by the defendants / petitioners.
12. In the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition, the following reliefs are sought by the plaintiff:
"a) passing preliminary decree declaring the plaintiff's 1/3rd share and divide the plaint schedule properties into 1/3 rd share each 5 C.R.P.No.1947 of 2025 (halves) by metes and bounds and allot 1/3rd separate share to the plaintiff.
b) on failure of the defendants (grant liberty) to the plaintiff to apply for final decree for division and allotment of shares declared in the preliminary decree and under Order 20 Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code.
c) to declare that registered sale deed document No.2677/2005 of Sub-registrar Office, Dhone, dated 20.09.2005, is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff.
d) to declare that the registered partition deed document No.2072/2019 is null and void, as shares are not equally shared between plaintiff and defendant.
e) award costs of suit.
f) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
13. In response thereto, in the written statement filed by defendant No.3, specific pleadings are taken in paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 as follows:
"3. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiff being the party and signatory to the partition deed bearing No.2072 / 2019 cannot seek for declaration of said deed as null and void. The plaintiff also cannot seek for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.2677 / 2005 dated 20.09.2005 as it is executed by the rightful owners. The plaintiff has no right to question the said sale deed.
4. The court fee paid by the plaintiff under Section 34(2) of A.P.Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act is not correct. Further, she has not paid the court fee for seeking declaration of sale deed 6 C.R.P.No.1947 of 2025 bearing No.2677 / 2005 and for declaration of partition deed bearing No.2072 / 2019 as void."
14. The trial Court framed several issues, out of which the relevant issues are the issues Nos.3 and 4 which are as follows:
"3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration that registered partition deed, document No.2072 / 2019 is null and void?
4. Whether court fees paid by the plaintiff under Section 34(2) is correct? "
15. Though the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration of the registered sale deed dated 20.09.2005 as null and void, since it is not the subject of the present petition, this Court has not gone into that issue. Insofar as the declaratory relief sought in respect of the registered partition deed dated 08.05.2019 is concerned, according to the contesting defendants Nos.2 and 3, the relief of declaration that the partition deed is null and void is impermissible since the plaintiff is a party to the document and as such suit is not maintainable for such declaratory relief without asking for cancellation of the said partition deed.
16. Issue No.3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration that registered partition deed, document No.2072 / 2019 is null and void?
Proposed issue (i): Whether the suit for declaration of invalidity of the partition deed bearing No.2072 / 2019 dated 08.05.2019 is maintainable without seeking its cancellation as plaintiff is party to it?
On a plain reading of issue No.3 (supra), though it appears to have covered the proposed issue No.1, both the issues operate in different fields. Issue No.3 deals with entitlement of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration in case of proof of her contention that partition deed is not valid. Whereas, the proposed issue No.1 deals with the maintainability of 7 C.R.P.No.1947 of 2025 the suit for declaration that the partition deed is null and void without seeking the relief of cancellation of the partition deed, as it is the contention of the defendants that a party to a document has to seek cancellation of a document but not declaration of a document as null and void. Therefore, both the issues operate in different areas and have a subtle demarcation. Therefore, the trial Court erred in rejecting the proposed additional issue No.1 to be framed.
17. Issue No.4: Whether court fees paid by the plaintiff under Section 34(2) is correct?
Proposed issue No.(ii): Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay court fee for seeking relief of declaration of invalidity of partition deed Doc.No.2072 / 2019 dated 08.05.2019?
Consequently and similarly the proposed issue No.2 is also required to be specifically framed as issue No.4 is broader in its operation without there being a specific focus on the issue whether the plaintiff is liable to pay separate court fee on the relief of declaration of the invalidity of the partition deed. Therefore, the proposed additional issue No.2 is required to be framed.
18. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners rightly submitted that issue No.4 may encompass the conflict between Section 34(1) and 34(2) of the C.F. Act and need not address the conflict between court fee payable under Section 34(2) as against Section 37 of the C.F.Act. As such, the proposed additional issue No.2 is required in addition to the issue already framed as issue No.4.
19. Therefore, for the above reasons, the order impugned in the revision petition is liable to be set aside while allowing the petition in I.A.No.51 of 2025 as prayed for.
8 C.R.P.No.1947 of 202520. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that as per the decision of the High Court of Madras in Vellayya Konar and others Vs. Ramaswami Konar and others 2, though the relief of declaration of a document as null and void is prayed, if the relief is required to be prayed is cancellation of a document, the court fee is required to be paid for cancellation of the document and not for mere declaration of document as null and void. Since the issue has not been raised before the trial Court, nor is it the subject of the petition in I.A.No.51 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to go into this aspect at this juncture. It is left open to the petitioners to place the said matter before the trial Court, as the Court is entitled to go into the question of court fee or additional issue also on its own.
21. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.23.09.2025 NSM / PNV 2 AIR 1939 MAD 894