Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The suit as framed is one for partition of the joint family property of a coparcener in possession, and that being so, the provision of the Court-fees Act, that applies, is Section 7 (iv)(b), which reads thus:

To enforce the right to share in any property [on the ground that it is joint family property : Rangaiah Chetty v. Subramania Chetty (1911) 8 IC 512 (FB).

2. The valuation of the relief under that section rests with the plaintiff, who has valued it at Rs. 10, and I must hold that the proper court-fee has been paid in respect of this relief. There is no allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff became divided in status, and there is nothing to show in what circumstances he was allowed to put forward such a case at the trial. It is suggested, that probably at the framing of the issues, on the statements made by the party or his counsel, an issue was raised as to whether there was a division in status. With this I am not concerned and I do not propose to consider whether the plaintiff should have been allowed to put forward a different case without amending his plaint. If the claim is to be treated as by a divided member, Mr. Rajamannar, contends tha