1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 8th May, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in suit no. 683/2007 filed by the appellant for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. By the impugned order the appellant was directed to pay ad valorem court fee within four weeks.

2. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant being out of possession of the suit property would be liable to pay ad valorem court fee in respect of the share claimed and supported her view relying upon AIR 1991 Delhi 48. The appellants in the plaint seeking partition of the properties asserted that she was deriving benefits and rent from the property at Anand Niketan. However the admitted position is the appellant is not in physical possession of the suit properties. The appellant has affixed fixed court fee on the plaint only on the basis of a claim of co- ownership and constructive possession. She was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on her share of the suit properties.

3. The appellant had valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction for relief of partition at about Rs. 20 crores in para