( 1 ) THIS suit is at the admission stage. Counsel for the plaintiff was called upon to satisfy this Court whether proper court fee has been paid on the various reliefs claimed in this suit. The plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs in this suit

(A) pass a permanent decree for partition of the suit property mentioned in Para I and more specifically detailed in the plain attached alongwith the plaint declaring the shares of the plaintiff which is l/6th; (b) a Local Commissioner be appointed to suggest a mode of parti- tion of the suit property by metes and bounds; (c) after submitting the report of the Local Commissioner, a final decree for partition be passed delineating and separating the share of the plaintiff in the suit property ; (d) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. I from preventing the use, occupation and possession of the suit property by the plaintiff; (e) grant permanent injunction restraining defendant No. I from selling, mortgaging, transferring and/encumbering the suit pro- perty in any manner without the consent of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 ; (f ) costs of these proceedings be awarded to the plaintiff; (g) such othet relief as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and just be granted to the plaintiff.

( 2 ) IN para 20 of the suit the plaintiff has mentioned that approximate value of the property in question is Rs. 9. 00,000. 00 (nine lakhs) and the value of the plaintiff s share would be about Rs. 1. 05 lakhs. It was pleaded that the parties in the suit are in joint possession of the property and thus, a court fee of Rs. 201. 00 is being affixed on the plaint for the relief regarding partition and for separating the plaintiff s share. So. the question which arises for decision is whether proper court fee has been paid by the plaintiff with regard to relief of partition of. the property ? The plaintiff, as mentioned above, has sought the partition by metes and bounds and then has sought an injunction restraining defendant No I from preventing the use, occupation and possession of the suit property. It is settled law that in order to decide as to what relief has been claimed by the plaintiff, in fact, the whole of the plaint has to be read. It is clear that in case from the perusal of the plaint it is to be inferred that the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession of the property in question, then the court fee paid initially on the relief regarding partition is correct but if the court is to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is cot m possession of any portion of the property inquestion then the plaintiff has to pay the court fee on the value of her share. Plaintiff claims to be the co-owner of the property No. D-74a, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The property was owned by her mother and after the death of her mother on January 6, 1972. the plaintiff and the defendants being the only heirs have inherited the said property in equal shares. It is mentioned in the plaint that Smt. Vishnu Wanti, mother of the plaintiff was suffering from cancer since 1970 and defendant No. 2 was looking alter her mother who was living with her and the remaining defendants had all been married and were living separately and used to come and live in the suit premises off and on to look after their mother and it was defendant No. 2 who was the only earning member of the family was supporting the mother. In Dccember 1971 defendant No. 1 was asked by the mother to come and live in the suit premises and defendant No. 2 also continued to live in room marked a in the plan attached with the plaint in blue colour and that plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 also used to come frequently and live in the property in question. Then, it is mentioned that after the death of the mother defendant No. 2 continued to remain in exclusive possession of the room marked a and in joint possession of the remaining portion and continued to support defendant No. I who-was in very stringent financi