1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 194/66 on the file of the Sub-Court, Palghat questions the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on issue 8, holding that the court-fee paid on the plaint is insufficient. The matter has been placed before a Division Bench in view of the importance of the question raised.

2. The suit property belonged to three Muhammadan cosharers as tenants, in-common. It is enough to notice that the plaintiff is an assignee of the rights of two of them, and the 1st Defendant is an assignee of the rights of the 3rd co-tenant. The plaint proceeds on the allegation that the possession of the 1st Defendant is as a co-owner on behalf of all, and prays for converting the joint-possession into separate possession and enjoyment by partition. A fixed court-fee of Rs. 200 for partition was paid, under S.37 (2) of the Kerala Court-fees and suits Valuation Act 1959, for the relief of partition. The court below held that the relief has to be valued under S.37 (1) of the Act, on the market value of the plaintiff's share. We may extract S.37 (1) and (2) of the Court-fees Act.

"37. Partition Suits.

1. In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint f