Hariprasad, J.

1. These appeals are boarded before us pursuant to a reference by a Division Bench. In the reference order, it has been mentioned that in Valsalan v. Kaumudi (1982 KLT 525), Ramanan v. Chitrasenan (2007 (2) KLT 11) and Sumangala v. Syamala (2013 (1) KLT 485) the view uniformly taken by three Division Benches of this Court that in a suit for partition, where the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of the property along with other sharers, the value of the subject matter for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction is the value of the plaintiff's share as mentioned in the plaint requires a reconsideration. According to the reference order, there is considerable doubt as to what would be the legal position if one of the defendants in such a suit applies for passing a supplementary preliminary decree for partition of his share having a market value exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court? Whether it will be proper to reject such a claim simply for the reason that the court which passed the preliminary decree did not ha