Proper Court-fee held payable in such circumstances.

1. This revision petition has been preferied by the second defendant in O.S. No 61 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Melur. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, is the wife of the first defendant, second respondent herein, and the mother of the second defendant-petitioner herein. She instituted the suit to obtain maintenance, past and future from the first defendant and inter alia to ask for a charge being created on the properties which belonged to the erstwhile joint farrily comprising of the defendants. While the suit has been instituted in the year 1977, the first defendant and the petitioner herein (second defendant) had effected a partition between themselves of the family properties under a partition deed, dated 4th April, 1975, Ex.B2 being a registration copy of the partition deed. In the said partition, the plaint A Schedule properties have been allotted to the first defendant-second respondent herein and the plaint B schedule properties have been allotted to the petitioner herein. In her suit the first respondent has alleged that with a view to deprive her of the maintenance legitimately due to her, the first defendant and the petitioner had effected an unequal partition between themselves, that the major portion of the properties have been allotted to the petitioner herein, that her right as a maintenance holder are not affected by the partition effected between the first defendant and the petitioner and as such she was entitled to a charge on the entire family properties which have now been partitioned into A and B schedule properties and allotted to the first defendant and the petitioner respectively. It may also be mentioned that as against the first defendant the first respondent has asked for a personal decree.

2. The first defendant and the petitioner herein raised a preliminary objection before the court below that the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, that if the suit had been properly valued, it would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court of Melur and consequently the learned District Munsif would not be entitled to try the suit. The defence has been raised in the following manner: The plaint B schedule properties have been purchased under a sale deed, a registration copy of which is Ex. B. 1, dated 22nd April, 1971, for a sum of Rs. 34,000. The petitioner and the first defendant have therefore, raised a contention that if the first respondent wanted to have a charge on the B schedule properties and overcome the partition deed entered into between the petitioner and the first defendant, then she should have asked for the setting aside of the partition and she should have valued that relief at Rs. 34,000 for which sum the plaint B schedule properties had been purchased. As a further corollary it was stated by the petitioner and the first defendant that if the suit had been valued at Rs. 34,000, then, the District Munsif, Court of Melur would not have jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. The learned District Munsif had framed two issues with reference to the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and the first defendant and considered them in detail. After due consideration, the District Munsif has held that the first respondent was not bound to ask for the setting aside of the partition deed and therefore she was also not bound to value the relief in the suit at the sum for which B sechedule properties have been purchased. He, therefore, rendered a finding on both the preliminary issues in favour of the first respondent and held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. It is to canvass the correctness of that order the petitioner has come forward with this revision.

4. Mr. Vaitheeswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that in as much as a partition had been effected between the petitioner and the first defendant about two years before the institution of the maintena