The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a partition suit, the question of court-fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint, and the law presumes joint possession unless exclusion is proved.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, directing the plaintiffs to pay court-fees under Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), they preferred the present revision before this court. Petitioners 2 to 4 herein are daughters of the first petitioner. 5th petitioner is the grand-daughter of the first petitioner. They filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 11?18th share in the suit properties which are described in Schedule A to C. The suit came to be filed on account of the fact that after the death of the husband of the first petitioner, namely, Ramalingam, the first respondent herein who is the son through the second wife Logambal did not make any arrangement for partition of the properties of her deceased husband. The said Ramalingam died on 9.2.97, and according to the petitioners who are his Class-1 heirs have filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the properties of the deceased Ramalingam. They valued their share at Rs. 17,64,024.13 and having regard to the fact that they are in joint possession and the original owner Ramalingam had died intestate, in the capacity as co-owners the suit was valued under Section 37 (2) of the Act and each of them had paid a court -fee of Rs.200. The court below had raised some objections regarding the court fee paid and after enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge by his impugned order dated 21.12.98 came to the conclusion that the court -fee ought to have been paid under Section 37 (1) of the Act and directed them to make good the deficit. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed the present revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as contesting first respondent.

3. The court below on the basis of certain averments in the plaint, directed the plaintiffs to pay court-fee under Section 37 (1) of the Act. In view of the controversy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners took me through the plaint averments. It is settled law that the question of court-fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. Further. all the material allegations contained in the plaint should be construed and taken as a whole. In the plaint, they prayed for 7?18 share in favour of the first plaintiff and first defendant and 18th share in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 5. A reading of the entire plaint shows that the properties are in joint possession of the sharers concerned. No doubt, in certain paragraphs, the plaintiffs complained regarding the attitude of the first defendant in not maintaining good relationship after the death of Ramalinga Udayar and strained relationship and differences of opinion. It is also true that they made allegations stating that the first defendant appropriated funds from joint family properties. No doubt, in para 6, the plaintiffs initially mentioned that the first defendant had sold lands in item 1 in A Schedule independently without reference to them. It is also true that they have made certain allegations against first defendant holding that he had let out the joint family lands to various tenants and appropriating the same without sharing the income with the other sharers. On the basis of the said averments, the court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were excluded from joint possession and the entire properties are with the control and enjoyment of the first defendant. As stated earlier, after perusing the entire averments, in the plaint, I am of the view that there is no basis for such conclusion. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have expressed their -well in not sharing the income of the joint family properties with the plaintiffs by the first defendant. In this regard, it is useful to refer the relevan