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 have the jurisdiction to entertain such a relief? What would be the remedy available to a defendant in such a situation?

2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it will be useful to take a note of the relevant facts. Supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 3rd defendant in a suit for partition filed separate appeals challenging the preliminary decree passed in the suit. Immovable properties, situate in Pudussery Village, Palakkad Taluk and District, are the subject matter of the partition suit. The place where the suit property is situate formed part of the erstwhile Madras Province. The suit was instituted on 30.01.2013. Market value of the plaint schedule properties, as shown in the plaint, is Rs. 11,25,000/-. Value of the plaintiffs' share is Rs. 1,87,500/-. Learned Sub Judge decreed the suit in part. The appeal preferred by the 3rd defendant before this Court was received on file and numbered as R.F.A.No.3 of 2017. The Registry refused to number the appeal filed by supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 4 raising an objection that going by the valuation of the plaintiffs' share, the appeal would not be maintainable before this Court.

3. It is pertinent to note that in R.F.A.No.3 of 2017, the defendant has shown value of the schedule properties at Rs. 30,00,000/- and valuation of the 3rd defendant's 1/5th share as Rs. 6,00,000/-. What is the basis for this valuation is not clear either from the plaint or from the decree in the Suit. In plaintiffs' appeal, valuation of the property is shown as in the plaint, as mentioned above. The Registry therefore took a stand that the appeal has to be filed before the District Court concerned.

4. Heard Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellants in the unnumbered appeal and Sri. Jacob Sebastian, appearing for the appellant in the other case, who is one of the respondents in the unnumbered appeal.

5. Precise question that falls for determination is whether in a suit for partition, when the plaintiff claims to be in joint possession of the property, value of the subject matter for the purpose of jurisdiction should be taken as the value of the fractional share of plaintiff or that of the entire estate sought to be partitioned?

6. We are of the considered view that taking a stock of the relevant statutory provisions will be highly essential for a proper resolution of the issues.

7. Before venturing to deal with the statutes and provisions relevant at present, we shall trace a little bit of history of the erstwhile statutes and pertinent provisions thereof, which can be called the forerunners of the present law. Earlier the legislature in its wisdom had enacted two separate laws for computation of court fees and valuation of suits for jurisdiction purposes. The Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short, “CF Act, 1870”) exte