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(