Sunita Agarwal, J.

1. By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the revisional court in allowing the revision filed by the plaintiff respondent and in deciding the issue Nos.3 and 4 in negative.

2. The suit for partition claiming possession over half share of the suit property namely Original Suit No. 211 of 2015 (Smt. Suman Rakesh & Anr. v. Satish Chand Sharma) has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for partition of Kothi No.1 situated in Mohalla Gyanlok, Hapur. The relief prayed in the said suit was for determination of half share of the plaintiffs in the suit property and handover possession thereof.

3. Issue Nos.3 and 4 framed by the trial court are relating to valuation of the suit property and payment of the court fee. Both the issues were decided against the plaintiff by the trial court by the judgment and order dated 16.12.2016. It was challenged in Revision No.84 of 2016 (Smt. Suman Rakesh & Anr. v. Satish Chand Sharma). The revisional court by means of order dated 20.5.2017 has allowed the revision while recording that the valuation of the suit property assessed by the plaintiff and the payment of court fee thereon was correct. Both the issues were thus decided in negative i.e. in favour of the plaintiff.

4. A perusal of the order passed by the revisional court indicates that taking into consideration of Section 7 (vi-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, it was found by the revisional court that the court fee was to be paid in accordance with the aforesaid provisions on the valuation of the property which shall be the market value thereof. It was further found that the plaintiff has got the suit property valued on the annual rental value of the property on the valuation assessed by the Nagar Palika by multiplying it with 20. The revisional court has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rama Kant Malviya v. District Judge, Allahabad & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) JCLR 25 (ALL) and Mitthoo Lal v. Gopal Chand reported in AIR 1979 ALL 226. It is recorded by the revisional court that the method of computation of market value i.e. 20 times of the up-to-date annual rental value of the property, which is a residential house, is an accepted mode of determination of market value and, therefore, the assessment of valuation and the court fee paid by the plaintiff thereon cannot be faulted.

5. These findings are under challenge in the present petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is no dispute about the fact that the suit was for partition and possession. In view of this admitted fact, the provisions of Section 7 (vi-A) of the Court Fee Act would apply. As per explanation to sub section (6-A), the value of the property for the purposes of the said Section would be the market value of immovable property. The court below has erred in accepting the method adopted by the plaintiff for determination of market value. In any case, the market value of the property has to be determined on the basis of exemplar sale deeds to know as to at what rates the properties in the vicinity were being sold at the relevant point of time. Both the judgments relied by the revisional court are distinguishable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as in those cases, the relief prayed was only of possession and not of partition and as such the provisions of Section 7 (vi-A) had no application.

6. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no dispute about the fact that for computation of court fee, the relevant provision applied by the revisional court is Section 7(vi-A). The revisional court has also taken into consideration that the valuation of the property would be the market value of the immovable property. Thus, as far as the application of the provisions are concerned, there is no dispute. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff has assessed the market value by taking into