The only question that has to be decided is as regards the Courtfee payable on the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying upon earlier decisions of this Court, such as Kuppuswami Goundan v. Mari Goundan1and Ramaswami v. Kunjammal2came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not bound to set aside the partition deed and that he can simply ignore the existence of an earlier partition. In these circumstances, section 7(iv-A) of the Court-fees Act is not an impediment to the valuing of the suit. Nothing has been urged before me by the respondents to show that this conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is not sustainable either on the principle decided in the cases mentioned, or under any other statutory provision.

The petitioner’s Counsel urges that when once he is able to ignore the existence of the previous partition of 1938, it is as if there has been no partition at all which would result in the properties being relegated to the position which they occupied prior to the alleged void partition. Antecedent to 1938, according to the plaintiff, himself and the other members of the joint family were in joint possession of the family properties and the suit for par