1. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed Suit before the Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar for partition. The Court below retuned the plaint by stating that there is no prayer for final decree, and that the Court-fee was not paid for the second relief i.e., mesne profits under Section 44(1) of Court-fee Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners represented the plaint with endorsement referring Lakshmi Ammal and others v. Subbaraj and others, AIR 1975 Mad. 208, and submitted that the Court-fee in respect of future mesne profits in the plaint need not be paid.

3. On 112. 2008 the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, again returned the Plaint by stating that in the above judgment there was no prayer for future means profit, while in this case there is a prayer for future means profit.

4. In the considered view of this Court, even if the prayer for final decree for partition is absent in the prayer column, after the passing of the preliminary decree there is no bar for plaintiffs to initiate proceedings for passing of final decree and they may file necessary Application. Hence, there is no necessity to incorporate the prayer as to passing of the final decree.

5. Insofar as the que