Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The revision is against a direction given by the trial Court to the plaintiff to pay an ad valorem Court fee for the value of the property in a claim for partition made by the plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that the suit property is held, according to the averments made in the plaint, in joint possession with the defendant and that he wants modification of possession by seeking for partition. There is no specific provision under the Court Fee Act, 1870 that provides for determination of valuation for the relief of partition and, therefore, Article 17(vi) of the Court Fee Act is attracted and a fixed Court fee alone is payable. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Asa Ram and Ors. v. Jagan Nath and Ors., (1934) AIR Lahore 563 that states that a suit of partition for joint property where the plaintiff alleges that he is in actual or constructive possession, the Court fee payable would be under Article 17(vi) and if the Court finds, on a plea being raised by the defendant, that plaintiff is found to be not in possession, the suit itself would be liable