HIMA KOHLI, J. :

I.A. No. 8753/2010 (by the defendant No.19 u/O VII R 11 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant No.19, praying inter alia that the suit for partition, declaration and injunction instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants be rejected on the ground that insufficient court fees has been affixed on the plaint.

2. Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant/defendant No.19 states that a bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs are neither in actual and physical possession, nor are they in symbolic possession of the suit properties bearing No.24 and 27, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, and therefore, under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, they are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the shares claimed by them in the suit premises, which should be assessed on their market value. He further states that as per the assessment made by the plaintiffs in para 26 of the plaint, they have valued the relief of partition at Rs.15 crores and assuming without admitting the said valuation to be correct, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the ad valorem court fees on the aforesaid value of the shares claimed by them in the suit premises for the relief of partition and possession thereof. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the defendant No.19 relies on the decision in the case of Smt. Prakash Wati vs. Smt. Dayawanti and Anrs. reported as AIR 1991 Delhi 48.

3. A reply in opposition to this application has been filed by the plaintiffs, wherein the averments made in the application have been denied and they have asserted that the suit properties have been correctly valued and they have paid the requisite court fees on the plaint, as per law. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that even if the court fees that has been affixed on the plaint is found to be deficient, the plaintiffs may be permitted to pay the requisite court fees as per their shares, only after the suit is finally decided.

It is further argued by learned counsel that the plaintiffs are entitled to value the suit as they may deem appropriate, which valuation would have to be treated as final and conclusive and the said valuation of the suit properties cannot be interfered with either by the Court or by the defendants. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies on the following decisions:-

(i) Neelavathi and Ors. vs. N. Natarajan and Ors. reported as AIR 1980 SC 691.

(ii) Kesho Mahton and Ors. vs. Ayodhya Mahton and Ors. reported as AIR 1983 Patna 67.

(iii) Jagannath Amin vs. Seetharama (dead) by LRs and Ors. reported as JT 2006 (10) SC 397

4. The Court has heard the arguments addressed by the counsels for the parties in the light of the averments that have been made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. For the purpose of deciding the question of court fees that is payable by the plaintiffs, it is necessary to examine the averments made in the plaint. The reliefs that have been claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit, are as below:-

“(a) A preliminary decree for partition may be passed in respect of suit properties No.24 and 27, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and possession be given to them of their share and a local commissioner be appointed for that purpose and in case partition is not feasible, then they may be sold and proceed of the sale be divided amongst them as per the law.

(b) A decree of mandatory injunction be passed against Defendants No.4 and 12 to furnish all the details of title deeds of all the family properties, jewellery, the details of fixed deposits in banks, cash, R.B.I. Bonds, bank balance(s), other investments and benami properties left by Shri Uttam Prakash Bansal, Smt. Kusum Lata etc. etc.

(c) A decree of declaration be passed to the effect that sub division of property No.24, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and transfer of property No.27, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi to Gulab Devi Charitable Tr