JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioners before this Court are defendants in Suit for partition, which was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar being Suit No.126 of 2014 Sudha Rani vs. Sambhu Nath and others. In the suit in question, the principle decree which was sought by her was in relation to apportionment of her share to the extent of 1/4 of the property in dispute, which she claimed to have succeeded from the predecessors of the property i.e. Late Mr. Shrinath. In this suit the following decree was sought:-

^^vr% oknuh izkFkhZ gS&

¼v½ fMØh cgd oknuh cjf[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; ls lkfnj Qjek;h tk;s fd oknxzLr lEifRr esa oknuh dk crkSj okfjl 1@4 Hkkx oknuh dks tqnkxku dj dCtk okLrfod oknuh dks fnyk;k tk;sA

¼c½ fMØh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk cgd oknuh cjf[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; ls lkfnj Qjek;h tk;s fd izfroknhx.k oknxzLr lEifRr esa oknuh ds dCts o iz;ksx esa vk jgh lEifRr ij fo|qr izokg o ty izokg dks u dkVs rFkk oknuh ds dCts o iz;ksx esa vkus okyh pk; dh nqdku ij okfnuh ds dCts iz;ksx esa vkus okyh ySVªhu ckFk:e ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ gLr{ksi izR;{k ;k vizR;{k u djsa u djk;sA

¼l½ ;g fd okn [kpZ oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA

¼n½ ;g fd vU; vuqrks"k tks vnkyr mfpr gks oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA^^

2. After the exchange of pleadings, the learned trial court had framed the issues and one of the issues i.e. Issue No.1, which was thus framed, was pertaining to the appropriate valuation of the suit. The said issue was decided by the learned trial court after calling for a report from the Amin, who had submitted a valuation report by way of Paper No.129-C 2, on the basis of the Nagar Nigam Taxation, which was levied on the property. Based on the Amin's report, the learned trial court had decided the issue on 17.12.2019 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent holding thereof that the suit as instituted by the plaintiff and the valuation of the suit, as made by her was appropriately valued in the light of ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the judgment reported in (2002) 2 Allahabad Civil General 897 Ramakant Malviya vs. District Judge, Haridwar and others.

3. Being aggrieved against the said judgment an order on the Issue No.1, a civil revision was preferred by the defendants/petitioners, being Civil Revision No.05 of 2020 Shambhu Nath Sharma vs. Sudha Rani Sharma and the revisional court, too while making reference to the provisions contained under Section 7(vi-A) of The Court Fees Act, 1870, had observed that as far as the suit for partition is concerned, the valuation has to be made in the light of the provisions contained under Section 7 (vi-A). The relevant provision relied by the revisional court is referred hereunder:-

^^U;k;ky; ds er esa] tgka rd iqujh{k.kdrkZx.k dh vksj ls m)r U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7(vi-A) dk iz'u gS\ mDr /kkjk 7(vi-A) izkfo/kkfur djrh gS fd and 7(vi-A) In suit for partition-

“according to one quarter of the value of the plaintiff's share of the property, and according to the full value of such share if on the date of presenting the plaint the plaintiff is out of possession of the property of which he claims to be a co-parcener or co-owner, and his claim to be a co-parcener or co-owner on such date is denied.

Explanation- The value of the property for the purposes of this sub-section shall be the market-value which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in according with sub-section (v), (v-A) or (v-B), as the case may be."

4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said provisions contained under Section 7(vi-A) The Court Fees Act, would not be applicable in the present case for the reason being that on the institution of the suit itself, the defendants/petitioners had filed his written statement and had denied the entitlement of any share to the plaintiff/respondent, and as such on that pretext he submitted that in that eventuality wher