Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.:- Defendants No. 1 and 2 are before this court impugning the order dated 9.4.2014, passed by the learned court below, vide which the application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on account of non-deposit of requisite court fee, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the plaint shows that the relief claimed in the plaint is regarding partition and joint possession and cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 25.5.2012. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that he is not in possession of the property. Even if the property is joint Hindu family property and the plaintiff is claiming specific possession and partition, he is required to affix ad valorem court fee on the tentative value of his share in the joint property. Even mesne profits have also been claimed, which also have to be tentatively assessed and court fee paid. In support of the plea, learned counsel relied upon Asa Ram and others v. Jagan Nath and others, AIR 1934 Lah. 563; Vijay Kumar v. Harish Chand alias Hari Chand, 1991 (2) RRR 494; Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh (Retd.) v. Mr. Hargursharan Singh, [2011(1) Marriage L.J. 434] : 2011(1) CCC 155; Kailash Devi v. D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 97] : 2013 (4) PLR 299 and Kuldeep Kaur v. Smt. Surjit Kaur and others, 2015(2) PLR 116.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that Sita Ram and his wife Smt. Tarawanti died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 5. The challenge in the suit is only to the Will allegedly projected by the defendants. The plaintiff, being joint owner in the family property, had merely claimed partition and joint possession thereof. Once the property is joint ownership, every co-owner is deemed to be in possession of every part of the property, hence, no court fee is payable. In support, reliance was placed upon Hari Nath Mittal v. Satish Kumar and others, 1985 (1) PLR 707; Vijay Kumar v. Harish Chand alias Hari Chand, 1991(2) RRR 494; Kuldip v. Babit Nayar, 2004 (2) RCR (C) 800; M/s Delhi-Assam Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. Sita Ram Aggarwal and others, 2008(2) RCR (C) 458; Air Vice Marshal Mahinder Singh Rao (Retd.) v. Narender Singh Rao and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1711] : 2010(4) PLR 45; Paramjit Kaur @ Pami and another v. Mohinder Singh and others, 2011(2) PLR 438; Janeshwar Kumar Jain v. Aadeshwar Kumar and others, [2014(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1577] : 2014(2) PLR 292 and Smt. Santra Devi and others v. Hari Singh and others 2015(2) RCR (C) 281.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

5. In the case in hand, respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed the suit claiming following reliefs: “

Suit for a decree of

(i) declaration to the effect that Sh. Sita Ram son of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass

and

Smt. Tarawanti @ Tara Rani wife of late Sh. Sita Ram, subcaste Ralhan (Jeni), R/o Thanesar have died intestate on 29.6.2006 and 22.7.2012 respectively leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 5 as their class-1 heirs and thus got their properties from father by survivorship and from mother by inhertance described herein below in paragraphs 9, 13 and 29 with consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2, 6 to 8 from alienating the properties detailed in paragraphs 9, 13, 14, 15 and 29 in any manner whatsoever and also from changing the existing position of the suit property by way of demolition or construction in any manner whatsoever;

(ii) Partition of suit properties by meets and bounds separating thereby share of the plaintiff and delivering it to him, and in the alternative for joint possession of those portions of the suit properties which found unfit of partition by the civil courts.

(iii) For recovery of amount found due as a profit of plaintiff on rendition of account of firm M/’s Ghanshyam Dass Sita Ram and that of firm M/s Priyanka Steels, A