JUDGMENT 1. Defendants 3 and 4 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dtd. 30/12/2022 in I.A.No.169 of 2022 in O.S.No.103 of 2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, being plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.103 of 2016 initially against other respondents seeking partition of plaint schedule property. Pending the suit, revision petitioners came on record as defendants 3 and 3. Revision petitioners are sons of 3rd respondent and grandson of 4th respondent herein. After revision petitioners came on record, they filed I.A.No.169 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) of CPC to direct the plaintiffs to value the suit under Sec. 34 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "CF Act") and direct the plaintiffs to pay deficit Court fee by granting reasonable time and failure to comply with the same, to reject the plaint. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that the claim of plaintiffs in the suit is baseless. There is no property within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiffs were never in possession of property much less joint possession at any point of time. The marriage of 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiffs was solemnized long back. The property in dispute fell to the share of 1st defendant in partition i.e. uncle in the year 1989, after the marriage of plaintiffs, and hence, filed the application for the reliefs stated supra. 5. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the application. 6. Trial Court by order dtd. 30/12/2022 dismissed the application. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed as follows: "The Court fee aspect, which is a question of fact, can be decided during the course of trial." "Jointness over the properties in a Hindu Law, shall be presumed until the contrary is established". "It is settled law that a Court can collect Court fee at any stage of the suit". Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 7. Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs have not paid Court fee as required under Sec. 34 (1) of the CF Act. "It is settled law that a Court can collect Court fee at any stage of the suit". Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 7. Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs have not paid Court fee as required under Sec. 34 (1) of the CF Act. He would also submit that plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the property and hence, they have to pay Court fee under Sec. 34 (1), but not under Sec. 34 (2) of the CF Act. He would submit that under Sec. 11 of the CF Act, defendant can bring to the notice of the Court, if the Court fee paid is not sufficient and the plaint can be returned under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of CPC and without considering these aspects, the Court below dismissed the application and thus, prayed to set aside the order. 9. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Court below committed any error in passing the impugned order dtd. 30/12/2022 in I.A.No.169 of 2022 in O.S.No.103 of 2016? 10. Suit, O.S.No.103 of 2016, is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of plaint schedule property. In the plaint, it was asserted that the plaintiffs are daughters and 1st defendant is the son of 2nd defendant and late Annam Thimma Reddy. Plaintiffs further asserted that plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family and the properties are joint ancestral properties. The father of plaintiffs and 1st defendant died in 1962. After death of father, defendants 1 and 2 are managing and cultivating the schedule property. It was further contended in the plaint that defendants used to give money to the plaintiffs periodically from out of the income derived from plaint schedule property towards their share. Since 1st defendant is denying the share of plaintiff and is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property without knowledge of plaintiffs, they filed the suit seeking partition of plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is valued at Rs.9, 35, 96, 000.00. Each of plaintiff 1/4th share is shown as Rs.2, 33, 99, 000.00. Total value of suit is shown as Rs.4, 67, 98, 000.00. Court fee of Rs.200.00 is paid under Sec. 34 (2) of the CF Act in accordance with pleadings referred to supra. 11. Plaint schedule property is valued at Rs.9, 35, 96, 000.00. Each of plaintiff 1/4th share is shown as Rs.2, 33, 99, 000.00. Total value of suit is shown as Rs.4, 67, 98, 000.00. Court fee of Rs.200.00 is paid under Sec. 34 (2) of the CF Act in accordance with pleadings referred to supra. 11. It is apt to extract Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which reads thus: "11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 12. In Saleem Bhai and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557 . the Apex Court held thus: "9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non- exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects." 13. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004) 3 SCC 137 . the Apex Court held thus: "15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation, and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted, it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair- splitting technicalities." 14. Thus, a conspectus of above expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court would manifest that while considering the aspect of rejection of plaint, the averments in the plaint alone to be considered. The grounds on which the plaint can be rejected, are enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, a conspectus of above expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court would manifest that while considering the aspect of rejection of plaint, the averments in the plaint alone to be considered. The grounds on which the plaint can be rejected, are enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. As per Order VII Rule 11 (b) of CPC, the plaint can be rejected, if the relief claimed is undervalued, and if the plaintiff is required to pay the Court fee within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. The averments in the plaint, in this case would disclose that according to plaintiff plaint schedule property is joint family property and they are in joint possession along with defendants 1 and 2. 15. Though learned counsel for petitioners argued that defendants are entitled to plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued, however, a perusal of the plaint, as indicated supra, discloses joint possession and hence court fee of Rs.200.00 under Sec 34(2) of APCF and SC Act was paid. As narrated supra, suit schedule property is valued at Rs.9, 35, 96, 000.00. Each of plaintiff 1/4th share is shown as Rs.2, 33, 99, 000.00. Total value of suit is shown as Rs.4, 67, 98, 000.00. Since the plaintiffs are claiming joint possession, a fixed Court fee of Rs.200.00 is paid. 16. As can be seen from the counter affidavit, it seems that 1st defendant also filed I.A.No.331 of 2016 to reject the plaint and the same was dismissed. The contention of learned counsel that plaintiffs are not in joint possession is a question of fact, which will be decided after evidence is let in. In fact, the observation of the Court below that the Court can collect Court fee at any stage of the suit, protects the interests of defendants as well as State revenue. The Court below on consideration of all these aspects, dismissed the application and this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.