1. The question posed in this revision, which, on reference by a learned single judge, has been placed before us, is whether the plaintiffs, who seek partition of the plaint schedule property, a portion of which is in the possession of trespassers (defendants 9 to 13), are required, as directed by the lower court, to pay ad valorem court fee for ejectment on the value of the entire property in the hands of the trespassers, or it would be sufficient if they pay ad valorem court fee on the value of their shares of the portion of the property trespassed upon. The plaintiffs have already paid fixed court fee for partition under S.37 (2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, and the present controversy confines to the correct ad valorem court fee that is payable with respect to the portion of the property remaining in the hands of the trespassers.

2. A partition suit simpliciter presupposes unity of title in the plaintiff and the defendants; and the claim is for separation of the plaintiff's share from the joint possession of the tarwad or of all the co-owners, as the case may be, for enjoyment to the exclusion of the other sharers. In all such cases, the co