Scope and applicability of Section 37(1)(2) and (4) of the Act.

S. Swamikkannu, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 83 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, is the revision-petitioner herein. Check-slip No. 850/XXII/S was filed in O.S. No. 83 of 1982 before the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.

2. A reference by the Court-fee Examiner in O.S. No. 83 of 1982 was submitted to the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, regarding the court-fee paid and the classification of the relief for partition as one under Section 37(2) is wrong. It is stated in the reference that the suit was filed to obtain possession, damages and future mesne profits, and the suit is sought to be classified as one for partition, damages and future mesne profits. Item No. 1 in the suit properties was purchased by the plaintiff from the first defendant on 28.5.1974. The mother of the defendant instituted a suit for partition and the share of the defendant was declared as 5/8. The plaintiff was a party to the proceedings as second defendant. The present suit has been filed stating that the plaintiff is entitled to 11/16 share as the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1239 of 1974 died and she was entitled to 1/8th share of which the first defendant in this suit is entitled to 1/16th share, and she was entitled to 10/16th share already and by virtue of this she was entitled to 11/16th share in the suit item No. 1. She prayed for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff in possession of her 11/16th share and to grant a decree for Rs. 2,093.75 as damages in equity to allot the entire item to her share and for future profits. It is stated by the court-fee examiner that if it is the intention of the plaintiff to re-open the partition already declared then she will have to reopen the partition and necessarily classify her claim under Section 37(4) of the Court-fees Act to set aside the prior decree with the necessary court-fee and she has to pay court-fee for getting a fresh allotment for the share. It is admitted that her predecessor in title has already parted with her allotted properties and possession is with defendants 4 and 5; and for the fresh allotment the claim has to be classified only under Section 37(1). The value for the relief of partition under Section 37(1) will be on the share fraction with statutory valuation permitted for revenue assisted lands coming under description 7(2) A to F of the Act 14 of 1955. On that the court-fee examiner has stated that the court-fee payable is Rs. 2,651/- and taking the court-fee already paid, the deficit court-fee of Rs. 2,511/- should be collected.

3. In the objection filed by the plaintiff, it was contended that for the purpose of computation of court fees, the allegation in the plaint must be looked into, and the intention of the plaintiff is not to reopen the partition and that possession of the defendants 4 and 5 also are only as purchasers from co-owners, and as such the court-fee payable is only under Section 37(2) of the Act. The plaintiff is in joint possession, and therefore, the court-fee paid is correct.

4. On the point whether the court-fee paid is correct, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, held that court-fee of Rs. 2,651/- has to be paid as mentioned in the check slip and the deficit court-fee of Rs. 2,551 has to be paid by the plaintiff. The reference was accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge. Aggrieved by the above decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff has come forward with this revision.

5. Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that even if the possession is with defendants 4 and 5, they are only purchasers from co-owners and as such they are in the position of co-owners and the court-fee payable is only under Section 37(2). In this regard, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also submits that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in observing that