In a suit for partition where the plaintiff is in joint possession, the jurisdictional value of the suit is the value of the whole property, not just the plaintiff's share.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants against the order of the Sub-Judge, I Class, dated 25th October, 1972, by which he has held that the value of the suit falls within his pecuniary jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/45th share, besides rendition of accounts. The valuation of the suit as given in the plaint is as follows :

"1. For the purposes of court fee, a fixed court fee of Rs. 20. 00 has been paid, as the plaintiffs are in part possession of the properties in dispute.

2. For purposes of jurisdiction Rs. 5000. 00 being equal to the market value of the interest claimed by the plaintiffs in the properties in dispute.

3. For the purposes of rendition of accounts Rs. 1000. 00 for the purposes of jurisdiction Rs. 200. 00 for purposes of court fee, on which a court fee of Rs. 20. 00 has been paid. The total court fee paid is Rs, 40. 00 on the plaint. The total value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 6000. 00 "

( 3 ) THE defendant-petitioners contested the suit and inter alia raised to preliminary objections, viz. (1) the suit was barred by res judicata, and (2) that the suit had not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. These pleas form subject matter of issues 3 and 4 respectively. Both the issues have been answered by the court below in favour of the plaintiff respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this revision and have challenged the findings of the court, on both the issues. It is, however, conceded between the parties that I should d,ecide issue No. 4 first and should I come to the conclusion that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit, then it is not necessary for me to discuss issue No. 3 as the same will be non est. On the other hand, should I uphold the finding on issue No. 4, then I should decide issue No. 3 as well. Under the circumstances, I will take up for consideration issue No. 4.

( 4 ) THE court below has held that the plaintiffs have claimed 1/45th share of the property and for purposes of jurisdiction, Rs. 5000. 00 being equal to the market value of the interest claimed by the plaintiffs is the valuation of the property in dispute and as such the jurisdictional value of the suit was only Rs. 5000. 00 , which fell within the competence of the court below. The court relied upon Shibgobinda Tribedi v. Suriyab Ali Tribedi, AIR 1970 Tri 64 (1), Yumlembam Ningol Leinajam Ongbi Baruni Devi v. Naorem Ningol Leimajam Ongbi T. Devi, AIR 1968 Manipur 52 (2) and Sabastian Antonio Texeira v. Rodolf Minguel Texcira, AIR 1962 Bom 4 (3), and held that the subject matter of the suit consisted only of share claimed by the plantiffs and not the whole of the properly. Consequently, issue No. 4 was answered in favour of the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the decision of the court below is legally not sustainable and it has committed an error in assuming the jurisdiction which it does not possess. The precuniary jurisdiction of the court of Sub-Judge, I Class in Delhi is up to Rs. 25. 000. 00 and from Rs. 25. 000. 00 to Rs. 50. 000. 00 with the District Court, and suits above the valuation of Rs. 50. 000. 00 are tried on the original side of the High Court.

( 5 ) THE relevant legal position may now be examined. The partition suits fall in two categories, viz. (1) in which the plaintiff is out of possession, and (2) in which he is in joint possession. So far as the first category is concerned, the plaintiff has to recover possession of the property and he has to value the suit for purposes of court fees under section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act on the market value of the share in the property. This valuation for purposes of court fees in view of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, also constitutes the value for purposes of jurisdiction. The High Court of