( 1 ) THIS is a cross-appeal filed by the Chief Inspe /1979 in CR No. 559 of 1972. The appeal filed by the respondent in respect of the same judgment regarding valuation, on a question which was decided against her by the High court has been allowed by this court (. CA No. 2220 of 1982.

( 2 ) IN the present appeal, the appellant contends that prayer (c) of the plaint has been wrongly valued for the purpose of court fees. Prayer (c) is as follows:

"that the plaintiffs one-third share in the properties left by late Dr B. N. Prasad as detailed in Schedule a attached to the plaint be partitioned and the plaintiff be put in separate possession of her share (valued at Rs 1,03,880. 25p.)"

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, the plaintiff must be presumed to have parted with possession of the property in question and hence court fees should have been paid on the full value of her share, in the property instead of 1/5th value of her share as has been done by her. This contention has been rightly negatived by the High court. Valuation of a claim for the purposes of court fees depends on the prayers in the plaint. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated that the immovable