In a suit for partition by a person in joint possession for partition of his share, the correct provision of the Court Fees Act applicable is Article 17(vi) of Schedule II, and the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is the value of the plaintiffs' share in the properties.

This is a civil revision petition filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 in Title Suit 115/63/10 of 1965 on the file of the Munsif, Manipur at Imphal against his order dated 28-3-1966 holding that the valuation of the Plaint A Schedule properties at Rs. 400 is covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of Indian Court-Feet, Act (Act VII of 1870) that the same is also the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Suits Valuation Act (Act VII of 1887) and that he has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit 115/63/10 of 1965 in the lower court against the petitioners (defendants 1 to 3) and the respondents 5 to 11 (defendants) for partition of 9 items in the plaint A schedule alleging that one Leimajam Tovaima Singh, a Hindu governed by the Dayabaga School of Hindu Law died on 9-5-1959, that the suit properties are the joint properties of the respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) and the petitioners (defendants 1 to 3) being co-heirs of the deceased and that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of their shares They also pleaded that a registered gift deed dated 4-5-1959 said to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 (defendants 2 and 3} in respect of the properties covered by items 1 and 2 in schedule A of the plaint (as alleged by the Petitioners), is void and inoperative and that they form part of the joint family property of the petitioners. The plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 4) prayed firstly for a decree for declaration that the plaint A schedule properties are fee joint family properties left by the deceased, to which the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 4) and the petitioners (defendants 1, 2 and 3) are entitled as heirs of the deceased. Secondly, they prayed for a decree for declaration that the gift-deed dated 4-5-1959 in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 in respect of the properties covered by the items 1 and 2 in schedule A of the plaint is void and that the properties still remain as part of the joint family properties. Thirdly, they prayed for a decree for partition of the plaint A schedule properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares of the parties. Fourthly, they prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the shares of the plaintiffs, in case, the plaintiffs are found to be not in possession of the plaint A schedule properties. They valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees at Rs. 400 and paid ad valorem court fee of Rs. 48.75 P under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Indian Court Fees Act.

3. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the respondents 1 to 4 had previously filed Title Suit 96 of 1962 in the Court of the Sub-Judge 1 against the petitioners and others for partition of 8 items of the present plaint A schedule properties, that they valued the suit at Rs. 4,000 for the purpose of jurisdiction and paid fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act, that the respondents 1 to 4 withdrew the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action, that the change of the valuation of the suit into Rs. 400 is arbitrary that the present suit should be valued at Rs 4,000 at least and that in such a case, the lower court which has pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits only of the value of Rs. 2,000 would have no jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. The lower court framed a preliminary issue on the question of the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and held that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act applies that, therefore, the valuation of Rs. 400 mentioned by the respondents 1 to 4 in their plaint is correct and that the suit is maintainable in the lower court.

5. It is well settled principle of law that the question of court fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and that its decision cannot turn either on the pleas in the written statement or on the final decision of the suit on th