The Plaintiff failed to establish that the B schedule property was a joint family asset and that the lease rights acquired by Sri Srinivas Vittoba Jannu did not constitute joint family property to entitle the other members of the family to seek partition in the same. The Court fee is leviable on the amount of rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting the suit.

Tirath Singh Thakur, J.—This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a Suit for partition of joint family property decreed in part by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore by his judgment dated 7th of April, 1998. The grievance in the appeal is confined to that part of the judgment and decree, by which the Court below has denied the relief of partition in respect of the plaint schedule-B property except to an extent of 53,356 sq.ft. described in the lease deed marked Ex.P 19. The Plaintiff argues that the Suit filed by him ought to have been decreed by the trial Court qua the entire property described in Schedule-B of the plaint.

2. The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 are brothers whereas Defendant No. 1 (now deceased) and Defendant No. 3 are their parents. The Plaintiff's case in the Suit filed by him was that he and his brothers constituted a Hindu Joint Family with their parents and owned joint family property, which was liable to partition among them. In Schedule-A to the plaint, the Plaintiff described the joint family property in the form of agricultural land while in Schedule-C, the moveable assets of the joint family was enumerated. In Schedule-B to the plaint, the Plaintiff described a solitary item of property comprising "Cubbon Lodge" with land under and appurtenant thereto situate on Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore. This property was, according to the Plaintiff held by the joint family on a long lease and was partible among the members of the family like the other joint family properties owned by them.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 viz., the other members of the joint family remained ex-parte before the trial Court. Written statements were however filed by Defendants 5 and 6, in which it was inter alia alleged that plaint Schedule-B property had reverted to the 5th Defendant except an area measuring 53,356 sq. ft. situate on the eastern side of the said property. The allegation that the lease hold rights over the Schedule-B property were acquired or held by the joint family was also denied and the maintainability of the suit assailed among others on the ground that the same was collusive and vexatious.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as 16 issues. While deciding Issues No. 1 and 6, the Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that B schedule property was a joint family asset as alleged by him. Issues No. 2 and 3 were also decided against the Plaintiff and the Court fee paid on the plaint held insufficient. In regard to Issue No. 4, the Court below held that since the Plaintiff had not questioned the validity of partnership deed dated 16th of September, 1996 and the deed of dissolution by which the same was dissolved the suit in so far as it laid a claim to the entire B schedule property was not maintainable. In answer to issue No. 6, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was entitled to 1/5th share in the plaint A schedule property and a portion of the plaint B schedule properties measuring 53,536 sq. ft. In so far as Issues No. 8 and 9 were concerned, the trial Court held that although the lease hold rights were partible yet since the Plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of a lease qua the B schedule property as on the date of the institution of the suit, he was not entitled to any relief in regard to the said property. The Court further held that the suit was in essence one intended to establish his lease hold rights over the entire B schedule property. Issues No. 10 to 15 were also held in favour of the Defendants and the suit decreed in part holding the Plaintiff entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in plaint A schedule property and a portion measuring 53,356 sq. ft. comprising the eastern part of plaint B schedule property fully described in Ex.P 19. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed the present appeal as already mentioned earlier.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Submissions ma