( 1 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 25-11-1993 in O. S. No. 7 of 1992 on Issue No. 11, have filed this revision challenging its legality and correctness.

( 2 ) THE petitioner 1 is the wife of the respondent 3 and the petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. That both the petitioners and respondent 3 were staying together till few years prior to the suit. The relationship between petitioner 1 and respondent 3 could not be cordial. Hence the respondent 3 started to stay separately since few years. Just to deprive the petitioners of their lawful right over the joint family property, the respondent 3 began to dispose of the family property. As such O. S. No. 7 of 1992 came to be filed for partition and injunction.

( 3 ) MR. Mogali, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Civil Judge has wrongly approached the case and he has called upon the petitioners to pay the Court fee on the ad valorem of the suit schedule property. On the other hand Mr. D. M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the order of the lower Court.

( 4 ) MR. Mogali, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of